Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Note that after a big start, Miley project is being caught by competitors, and may be soon overtaken. I don't know if it will be useful, but sure soon it won't be at all. 2013/3/5 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 10 days remaining! LENR Distributed Power Units By George Miley
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:01 AM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: the CF film that is hard to find is Bullseye (with Michael Caine and Roger Moore) Cool. You can own it in the Amazon cloud for ten bucks: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002BI35BK/ref=atv_feed_catalog?tag=imdb-amazonvideo-20
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 6 Mar 2013 19:36:16 -0800: Hi, [snip] How do you know this? Because they contacted me by private email, and I suggested that they look at Keely's work. That's where the idea in the film, of using sound as the key to success, came from. The film did not get good reviews (like LENR) but still seems to have grossed over $60,000,000... warped priorities, it would seem. Had that sum gone into the technology, we might be seeing life imitating art. We're definitely in the wrong business - if access to funds is any criterion for success ... -Original Message- From: Robin Speaking of staged drama, there is always the message of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Reaction_%28film%29 The script writer for this film is, or at least used to be, a lurker on Vortex. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
FYI, I guess you know that Gene Mallove was the technical consultant for The Saint.I love that one, since Gene put in those post-its after visiting my lab, the equations weretaken from Peter, the name Dr. Russel from Russ George, E. Shue called several researchers,... Oh back in the day. D2 From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 08:26:48 +1100 In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 6 Mar 2013 19:36:16 -0800: Hi, [snip] How do you know this? Because they contacted me by private email, and I suggested that they look at Keely's work. That's where the idea in the film, of using sound as the key to success, came from. The film did not get good reviews (like LENR) but still seems to have grossed over $60,000,000... warped priorities, it would seem. Had that sum gone into the technology, we might be seeing life imitating art. We're definitely in the wrong business - if access to funds is any criterion for success ... -Original Message- From: Robin Speaking of staged drama, there is always the message of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Reaction_%28film%29 The script writer for this film is, or at least used to be, a lurker on Vortex. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I understand well the skepticism of many on Miley. As far as I know Miley have no validated reactor. He has a rational project, which can be written on the back of a Post-it. The image is an artistic vision, which I hope is not the final engineering result. However I deeply disagree with the cognitive dissonance that I observe all the time on LENR. LENR is real, so it is NORMAL SCIENCE, in a psychiatric hospital for depressive people called Western World. It tooks 5 months with a normal team for Defkalion to make a first reactor. I know people comfortably doubt on them, but the behavioral evidences are clear. I'm not living in the conspiracy theorist world where all is in doubt. I live in a human world, enclosing the business world, where people a rationally crazy. However the biggest reason to support this project for an ultra-light startup is that OTHER PROJECTS ARE NO BETTER. They also have crazy artists scheme, unproven ideas, many challenges. Some are based on known theories, but engineers can tell you that it does not make things work better. All have big chance to fail, yet to give lessons. For me the challenge of Miley is not around LENR, if he works with good experts (in material science), but around harnessing TEG and most of all, organizational and mass psychiatry. Of course I assume that in such a startup he will work with a normal engineer team, and not in a garage. Maybe I underestimated that risk. More than success of creating that startup, I imagine that this can put the focus on LENR and call interest on emerging business that flourish today. My forecast if Miley win the vote is that it will be anyway rejected, but some more people will hear of LENR, and they will see the facts better than the government. I remember reading one book of the Fondation trilogy by Asimov. When the Empire is collapsing, even a great general cannot save it, because the intrinsic stupidity is impossible to fight, even by a genius. As said Defkalion recently there is no hope from governments. I just hope to catch some interest of people at the border of the Empire of Stupidity where I live currently.
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Jed wrote. /The scientific establishment is an abstraction. It is not a real body. There is no single group constituting that establishment that meets in a building somewhere, like a Congress, and reaches unanimous conclusions. Even if a majority of scientists remain unconvinced by a good demonstration, thousands of others will be convinced.// / There may not be an official body, but it sure acts like one. Consider AGW and Climate Scientists for example. They surely speak with one voice and support each other, even when the facts are against them. Cnsider DoE's response. Their official policy is not to support LENR. I think you underestimate the group think of physicists.
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Cnsider DoE's response. Their official policy is not to support LENR. My point is that we do not need them. If someone would do a convincing demo we would get plenty of money from private sources. I think you underestimate the group think of physicists. Even if 99.9% of physicists disagreed, we could do this with 0.1%. Heck, we could do this with one billionaire. Remember Szpak's dictum: scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe. If we get funding, opposition will melt away. In 1989 at the height of the controversy, many leading physicists who were excoriating cold fusion were secretly trying to get funding from EPRI to study cold fusion, according to Tom Passell. Opposition to cold fusion is a pocketbook issue. Physicists do not actually care whether an idea appears to defy the laws of physics or whether it can be tested or not. They raise these objections against cold fusion, but it is an act. An excuse. They do not object to string theory or multi-universe theories. What they care about is money and political power. In that regard, they are no different from people in other walks of life. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Jed is right, there is no committee that decide of truths. Just network of interest where committee and leaders are super-nodes, because they can drown the other in pits of stupidity without the other having any chance to survive... so better to follow happily and die, rather than oppose and die. that is how delusion wins. note that initially it is a rational opinion, but with time it became a delusion because people are too much committed in an error, and have to ignore facts. It is aggravated by people depending on others more important people that are delusioned, and who make their own individual opinion without good consequence. it is well described in Benabou papers http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%207p%20paper.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf 2013/3/6 a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net Jed wrote. *The scientific establishment is an abstraction. It is not a real body. There is no single group constituting that establishment that meets in a building somewhere, like a Congress, and reaches unanimous conclusions. Even if a majority of scientists remain unconvinced by a good demonstration, thousands of others will be convinced.*** There may not be an official body, but it sure acts like one. Consider AGW and Climate Scientists for example. They surely speak with one voice and support each other, even when the facts are against them. Cnsider DoE's response. Their official policy is not to support LENR. I think you underestimate the group think of physicists.
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Many think you can take a great leap from a small experiment to some grand system. (Rossi has tried that but I am afraid it will not end well for him.) But I don’t think it works like that. You set a goal that is just outside what you know and what you have experience with and then you try. You learn from the attempt and the journey. You see things that you would not have predicted. Different people have different equipment, different support, and different viewpoints. Thus, they take different approaches. I prefer to try to take only a step of a factor of 10 or so with the LENR part but have a platform ready to take the next step if I am successful and then scale it once more and then again. “You don't have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step”-- Martin Luther King I am not sure if George will get his grant or be successful if he does. However, I am confident that he will learn from the attempt itself. To ask for any more at this time is not realistic. From: alain.sep...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 12:15:37 +0100 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I understand well the skepticism of many on Miley.As far as I know Miley have no validated reactor. He has a rational project, which can be written on the back of a Post-it. The image is an artistic vision, which I hope is not the final engineering result. However I deeply disagree with the cognitive dissonance that I observe all the time on LENR. LENR is real, so it is NORMAL SCIENCE, in a psychiatric hospital for depressive people called Western World. It tooks 5 months with a normal team for Defkalion to make a first reactor. I know people comfortably doubt on them, but the behavioral evidences are clear. I'm not living in the conspiracy theorist world where all is in doubt. I live in a human world, enclosing the business world, where people a rationally crazy. However the biggest reason to support this project for an ultra-light startup is that OTHER PROJECTS ARE NO BETTER. They also have crazy artists scheme, unproven ideas, many challenges. Some are based on known theories, but engineers can tell you that it does not make things work better. All have big chance to fail, yet to give lessons. For me the challenge of Miley is not around LENR, if he works with good experts (in material science), but around harnessing TEG and most of all, organizational and mass psychiatry. Of course I assume that in such a startup he will work with a normal engineer team, and not in a garage. Maybe I underestimated that risk. More than success of creating that startup, I imagine that this can put the focus on LENR and call interest on emerging business that flourish today. My forecast if Miley win the vote is that it will be anyway rejected, but some more people will hear of LENR, and they will see the facts better than the government. I remember reading one book of the Fondation trilogy by Asimov. When the Empire is collapsing, even a great general cannot save it, because the intrinsic stupidity is impossible to fight, even by a genius. As said Defkalion recently there is no hope from governments.I just hope to catch some interest of people at the border of the Empire of Stupidity where I live currently.
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: that is how delusion wins. note that initially it is a rational opinion, but with time it became a delusion because people are too much committed in an error . . . Delusion does not always win. Not everyone goes along with the DoE, *Nature*magazine, Wikipedia and other assorted strange bedfellows opposed to this research. Cold fusion has many supporters. As I said, I know that we do because of the audience at LENR-CANR.org. No one can predict the future. We may lose. I guess if I had to bet, I would bet we will lose, and the research will be forgotten 20 years from now. But it depends on politics and human nature, which cannot be predicted. Most cold fusion researchers are not doing themselves or the field any favors. People such as Rossi have helped the opposition. Still, there is reason to hope. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Many think you can take a great leap from a small experiment to some grand system. Yes. That is a bad idea. This is very important point! (Rossi has tried that but I am afraid it will not end well for him.) Apparently he tried and succeeded. As far as anyone can tell. He even succeeded with the 1 MW reactor, which is far too big in my opinion. Too dangerous! It is an astounding accomplishment, like Igor Sikorsky's 1914 airplane that flew 16 passengers and had a range of thousands of miles. I agree it may not end well for Rossi, but that is because he is trying to hide his results and he alienates investors and customers. I prefer to try to take only a step of a factor of 10 or so with the LENR part . . . Where would that bring you in terms of power, temperature and power density? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Dear Dennis, Re going from small experiment to grand system: I think actually there are two steps: - low intensity, low reliability excess heat; (LENR) - high intensity enhanced excess heat (LENR+) The main difference is the mechanism of NAE-genesis and the temporal density of these active sites. LENR+ is a highly dynamic process. LENR can be scaled up only via LENR+. What Rossi has found is this enhancement; he has problems with controlling it. Defkalion -is creating engineering of an other variant of LENR + See please for example: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/02/strategic-principles-of-lenr-and-their.html the sequel to it and few other New Energy writings on my blog Ego Out. The great question is: what has George Miley, LENR or LENR+? Peter On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:48 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Many think you can take a great leap from a small experiment to some grand system. (Rossi has tried that but I am afraid it will not end well for him.) But I don’t think it works like that. You set a goal that is just outside what you know and what you have experience with and then you try. You learn from the attempt and the journey. You see things that you would not have predicted. Different people have different equipment, different support, and different viewpoints. Thus, they take different approaches. ** I prefer to try to take only a step of a factor of 10 or so with the LENR part but have a platform ready to take the next step if I am successful and then scale it once more and then again. “You don't have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step”-- Martin Luther King I am not sure if George will get his grant or be successful if he does. However, I am confident that he will learn from the attempt itself. To ask for any more at this time is not realistic. -- From: alain.sep...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 12:15:37 +0100 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I understand well the skepticism of many on Miley. As far as I know Miley have no validated reactor. He has a rational project, which can be written on the back of a Post-it. The image is an artistic vision, which I hope is not the final engineering result. However I deeply disagree with the cognitive dissonance that I observe all the time on LENR. LENR is real, so it is NORMAL SCIENCE, in a psychiatric hospital for depressive people called Western World. It tooks 5 months with a normal team for Defkalion to make a first reactor. I know people comfortably doubt on them, but the behavioral evidences are clear. I'm not living in the conspiracy theorist world where all is in doubt. I live in a human world, enclosing the business world, where people a rationally crazy. However the biggest reason to support this project for an ultra-light startup is that OTHER PROJECTS ARE NO BETTER. They also have crazy artists scheme, unproven ideas, many challenges. Some are based on known theories, but engineers can tell you that it does not make things work better. All have big chance to fail, yet to give lessons. For me the challenge of Miley is not around LENR, if he works with good experts (in material science), but around harnessing TEG and most of all, organizational and mass psychiatry. Of course I assume that in such a startup he will work with a normal engineer team, and not in a garage. Maybe I underestimated that risk. More than success of creating that startup, I imagine that this can put the focus on LENR and call interest on emerging business that flourish today. My forecast if Miley win the vote is that it will be anyway rejected, but some more people will hear of LENR, and they will see the facts better than the government. I remember reading one book of the Fondation trilogy by Asimov. When the Empire is collapsing, even a great general cannot save it, because the intrinsic stupidity is impossible to fight, even by a genius. As said Defkalion recently there is no hope from governments. I just hope to catch some interest of people at the border of the Empire of Stupidity where I live currently. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Let me add a correction to this this thread. I recall now that Arata used a thermoelectric chip and small motor used to focus a camera lens. That is bigger than an analog wristwatch motor. Still, it was not a good demonstration because it takes such a small amount of power. That leaves room for error or even fraud. It was not convincing. As I said, conventional calorimetry would be a lot better. Conventional Seebeck calorimetry is conceptually the same thing as driving a motor from a thermoelectric chip. The Seebeck is quantitative, way more informative and more reliable. As I recall the motor only ran when there was a chemical reaction still occurring, according to Arata himself. That make it even more pointless. I do not think much of Arata's experiments, as I made clear in this paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonar.pdf I think his claims are probably correct despite the problems with this experiment. Some of his DS-Cathode experiments were a lot more convincing. McKubre's tests were way more convincing, needless to say. The core of the experiment is the same, so the early work supports the later claims. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I doubt many people on this list have written a proposal to get funding from a US government agency or evaluated such proposals, but I have. Certain requirement are demanded. These in part are: the reason why the program is important to the country , the exact way the money will be used, and the expected result have to be shown. These requirements are difficult to satisfy when money is requested for LENR. No money would be given if a person provided an engineering design based on a hypothetical energy source and then expected to develop the energy source. The reviewers are not fools and know exactly what is being requested and the chance of success based on the proposal. If a person wants money, they must show that the energy source is real and exactly how they will make it better. This is not easy to do at the present time when proposing to study LENR. Ed On Mar 6, 2013, at 7:48 AM, DJ Cravens wrote: Many think you can take a great leap from a small experiment to some grand system. (Rossi has tried that but I am afraid it will not end well for him.) But I don’t think it works like that. You set a goal that is just outside what you know and what you have experience with and then you try. You learn from the attempt and the journey. You see things that you would not have predicted. Different people have different equipment, different support, and different viewpoints. Thus, they take different approaches. I prefer to try to take only a step of a factor of 10 or so with the LENR part but have a platform ready to take the next step if I am successful and then scale it once more and then again. “You don't have tosee the whole staircase, just take the first step”-- Martin Luther King I am not sure if George will get his grant or be successful if he does. However, I am confident that he will learn from the attempt itself. To ask for any more at this time is not realistic. From: alain.sep...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 12:15:37 +0100 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I understand well the skepticism of many on Miley. As far as I know Miley have no validated reactor. He has a rational project, which can be written on the back of a Post-it. The image is an artistic vision, which I hope is not the final engineering result. However I deeply disagree with the cognitive dissonance that I observe all the time on LENR. LENR is real, so it is NORMAL SCIENCE, in a psychiatric hospital for depressive people called Western World. It tooks 5 months with a normal team for Defkalion to make a first reactor. I know people comfortably doubt on them, but the behavioral evidences are clear. I'm not living in the conspiracy theorist world where all is in doubt. I live in a human world, enclosing the business world, where people a rationally crazy. However the biggest reason to support this project for an ultra- light startup is that OTHER PROJECTS ARE NO BETTER. They also have crazy artists scheme, unproven ideas, many challenges. Some are based on known theories, but engineers can tell you that it does not make things work better. All have big chance to fail, yet to give lessons. For me the challenge of Miley is not around LENR, if he works with good experts (in material science), but around harnessing TEG and most of all, organizational and mass psychiatry. Of course I assume that in such a startup he will work with a normal engineer team, and not in a garage. Maybe I underestimated that risk. More than success of creating that startup, I imagine that this can put the focus on LENR and call interest on emerging business that flourish today. My forecast if Miley win the vote is that it will be anyway rejected, but some more people will hear of LENR, and they will see the facts better than the government. I remember reading one book of the Fondation trilogy by Asimov. When the Empire is collapsing, even a great general cannot save it, because the intrinsic stupidity is impossible to fight, even by a genius. As said Defkalion recently there is no hope from governments. I just hope to catch some interest of people at the border of the Empire of Stupidity where I live currently.
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
And this is why I asked the question I did. When I got the answer I did, I was rendered speechless. On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I doubt many people on this list have written a proposal to get funding from a US government agency or evaluated such proposals, but I have. Certain requirement are demanded. These in part are: the reason why the program is important to the country , the exact way the money will be used, and the expected result have to be shown. These requirements are difficult to satisfy when money is requested for LENR. No money would be given if a person provided an engineering design based on a hypothetical energy source and then expected to develop the energy source. The reviewers are not fools and know exactly what is being requested and the chance of success based on the proposal. If a person wants money, they must show that the energy source is real and exactly how they will make it better. This is not easy to do at the present time when proposing to study LENR. Ed On Mar 6, 2013, at 7:48 AM, DJ Cravens wrote: Many think you can take a great leap from a small experiment to some grand system. (Rossi has tried that but I am afraid it will not end well for him.) But I don’t think it works like that. You set a goal that is just outside what you know and what you have experience with and then you try. You learn from the attempt and the journey. You see things that you would not have predicted. Different people have different equipment, different support, and different viewpoints. Thus, they take different approaches. I prefer to try to take only a step of a factor of 10 or so with the LENR part but have a platform ready to take the next step if I am successful and then scale it once more and then again. “You don't have tosee the whole staircase, just take the first step”-- Martin Luther King I am not sure if George will get his grant or be successful if he does. However, I am confident that he will learn from the attempt itself. To ask for any more at this time is not realistic. -- From: alain.sep...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 12:15:37 +0100 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I understand well the skepticism of many on Miley. As far as I know Miley have no validated reactor. He has a rational project, which can be written on the back of a Post-it. The image is an artistic vision, which I hope is not the final engineering result. However I deeply disagree with the cognitive dissonance that I observe all the time on LENR. LENR is real, so it is NORMAL SCIENCE, in a psychiatric hospital for depressive people called Western World. It tooks 5 months with a normal team for Defkalion to make a first reactor. I know people comfortably doubt on them, but the behavioral evidences are clear. I'm not living in the conspiracy theorist world where all is in doubt. I live in a human world, enclosing the business world, where people a rationally crazy. However the biggest reason to support this project for an ultra-light startup is that OTHER PROJECTS ARE NO BETTER. They also have crazy artists scheme, unproven ideas, many challenges. Some are based on known theories, but engineers can tell you that it does not make things work better. All have big chance to fail, yet to give lessons. For me the challenge of Miley is not around LENR, if he works with good experts (in material science), but around harnessing TEG and most of all, organizational and mass psychiatry. Of course I assume that in such a startup he will work with a normal engineer team, and not in a garage. Maybe I underestimated that risk. More than success of creating that startup, I imagine that this can put the focus on LENR and call interest on emerging business that flourish today. My forecast if Miley win the vote is that it will be anyway rejected, but some more people will hear of LENR, and they will see the facts better than the government. I remember reading one book of the Fondation trilogy by Asimov. When the Empire is collapsing, even a great general cannot save it, because the intrinsic stupidity is impossible to fight, even by a genius. As said Defkalion recently there is no hope from governments. I just hope to catch some interest of people at the border of the Empire of Stupidity where I live currently.
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Isn't it an amazing thing - being forced to judge irrationality? It sounds like an oxymoron or paradox. Columbus discovered the West Indies and history lurched forward, regardless of inaccuracy. I see Rossi and the attention he's brought to the subject the same way. Fake in one way, real in another.
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Chris, Rossi has produced real power using LENR. The only question is whether he can use this to make a commercial product that is reliable and meets a commercial need. Rossi is not a fake because the energy is real. Unfortunately, he is very poor at public relations and has very little business skill. People keep being confused by not focusing on what is actually happening. Rossi and other people have made energy using LENR. As yet, they have not mastered the phenomenon well enough to create a commercial product. Meanwhile, the mob keeps demanding proof, tests they can believe, and a commercial product without having any understanding of what is actually happening. Ed On Mar 6, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Chris Zell wrote: Isn't it an amazing thing - being forced to judge irrationality? It sounds like an oxymoron or paradox. Columbus discovered the West Indies and history lurched forward, regardless of inaccuracy. I see Rossi and the attention he's brought to the subject the same way. Fake in one way, real in another.
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
The current system I am working off of is at 0.25 to 1 W with no input. This is with about 25 grams of sample (density about 3 gm/ml - metal in C). This is in a heavy metal sphere with gas pressure generated in situ and sealed. The temperature is near room temp when not insulated. Higher power densities can be reached by stimulation but at the expense of COP. I am hoping that there will be a trade off of volume/surface area, stimulation and COP,heat generation and power extraction. Part of the problem is making a simple variable heat path so that power extraction andworking temperature are balanced. But I have likely said too much- this is not the proper forum for such things. With luckI will have a poster at ICCF for specifics. (But it will likely be ignored like my high tempmetal/gas was at DC). Dennis Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:00:56 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ... I prefer to try to take only a step of a factor of 10 or so with the LENR part . . .Where would that bring you in terms of power, temperature and power density? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Dennis, the CMNS group is the proper forum. Would you explain what you are proposing there? Ed On Mar 6, 2013, at 9:07 AM, DJ Cravens wrote: The current system I am working off of is at 0.25 to 1 W with no input. This is with about 25 grams of sample (density about 3 gm/ml - metal in C). This is in a heavy metal sphere with gas pressure generated in situ and sealed. The temperature is near room temp when not insulated. Higher power densities can be reached by stimulation but at the expense of COP. I am hoping that there will be a trade off of volume/surface area, stimulation and COP, heat generation and power extraction. Part of the problem is making a simple variable heat path so that power extraction and working temperature are balanced. But I have likely said too much- this is not the proper forum for such things. With luck I will have a poster at ICCF for specifics. (But it will likely be ignored like my high temp metal/gas was at DC). Dennis Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:00:56 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ... I prefer to try to take only a step of a factor of 10 or so with the LENR part . . . Where would that bring you in terms of power, temperature and power density? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Dennis, I would like to hear a little more about your experiment. What COP are you measuring at this time and are you able to determine the temperature of the reaction components? Any information would be greatly appreciated and some among this list might be able to offer suggestions. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 11:07 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up The current system I am working off of is at 0.25 to 1 W with no input. This iswith about 25 grams of sample(density about 3 gm/ml - metal in C). This is in a heavy metal sphere with gaspressure generatedin situ and sealed. The temperature is near room temp when not insulated. Higherpower densities can be reached by stimulation but at the expense of COP. I am hopingthat there will be a trade off of volume/surface area, stimulation and COP, heatgeneration and power extraction. Part of theproblem is making a simple variable heat path so that powerextraction and workingtemperature are balanced. But I havelikely said too much- this is not the proper forum for such things. With luck I will havea poster at ICCF for specifics. (But it will likely be ignored like my hightemp metal/gaswas at DC). Dennis Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:00:56 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ... I preferto try to take only a step of a factor of 10 or so with the LENR part . . . Where would that bring you in terms of power, temperature and power density? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Infinite. He said The current system I am working off of is at 0.25 to 1 W with no input That's .25W/0W at minimum. On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:14 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Dennis, I would like to hear a little more about your experiment. What COP are you measuring at this time and are you able to determine the temperature of the reaction components? Any information would be greatly appreciated and some among this list might be able to offer suggestions. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 11:07 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up The current system I am working off of is at 0.25 to 1 W with no input. This is with about 25 grams of sample (density about 3 gm/ml - metal in C). This is in a heavy metal sphere with gas pressure generated in situ and sealed. The temperature is near room temp when not insulated. Higher power densities can be reached by stimulation but at the expense of COP. I am hoping that there will be a trade off of volume/surface area, stimulation and COP, heat generation and power extraction. Part of the problem is making a simple variable heat path so that power extraction and working temperature are balanced. But I have likely said too much- this is not the proper forum for such things. With luck I will have a poster at ICCF for specifics. (But it will likely be ignored like my high temp metal/gas was at DC). Dennis -- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:00:56 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ... I prefer to try to take only a step of a factor of 10 or so with the LENR part . . . Where would that bring you in terms of power, temperature and power density? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
CMNS started (or restarted) with the intent of experimental discussions but it is seldom that, now mostly spinning theories- Seldom any nuts and bolts. I think the only real forum for nuts and bolts are papers andposters these days. I expect to just write up a simple poster for the meeting and go from there. I am staying busy these days.After all this is all just a hobby for me and life goes on. I am hoping to find enough hot samples to fill my jug. The problems are the trade offs in COP, absolute power, temperature, I think Mitch got to around 20 with stimulation at MIT but very very low absolute power. I am doing a similar electrical stimulation of loaded powder but with C instead of ceramicseparators to avoid sintering and it allows for greater currents and controls. Rossi claims to have high power but at lower COP (it gets lower each time I look).You need to be above 5 and preferably above 10 if you have to stimulate the samples.And then you need a big sample for more power. I just never could get much from Un-stimulated gas and Ni. I am stuck with Pd and D, but then the cost is through the rooffor a reasonably large system. (however, additives seem to help) Dennis CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com From: stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:13:48 -0700 Dennis, the CMNS group is the proper forum. Would you explain what you are proposing there? Ed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
On Mar 6, 2013, at 9:46 AM, DJ Cravens wrote: CMNS started (or restarted) with the intent of experimental discussions but it is seldom that, now mostly spinning theories- Seldom any nuts and bolts. I think the only real forum for nuts and bolts are papers and posters these days. The subject is theory now but any discussion of nuts and bolts would be welcome. You only need to create the interest. I expect to just write up a simple poster for the meeting and go from there. I am staying busy these days. After all this is all just a hobby for me and life goes on. I am hoping to find enough hot samples to fill my jug. The problems are the trade offs in COP, absolute power, temperature, I think Mitch got to around 20 with stimulation at MIT but very very low absolute power. I am doing a similar electrical stimulation of loaded powder but with C instead of ceramic separators to avoid sintering and it allows for greater currents and controls. Rossi claims to have high power but at lower COP (it gets lower each time I look). You need to be above 5 and preferably above 10 if you have to stimulate the samples. And then you need a big sample for more power. I just never could get much from Un-stimulated gas and Ni. I am stuck with Pd and D, but then the cost is through the roof for a reasonably large system. (however, additives seem to help) The big question is WHY is this effect so difficult to cause and WHY is the amount so small? This question requires a theory to answer. Do you have an answer? Ed Dennis CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com From: stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:13:48 -0700 Dennis, the CMNS group is the proper forum. Would you explain what you are proposing there? Ed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Mar 6, 2013, at 9:46 AM, DJ Cravens wrote: CMNS started (or restarted) with the intent of experimental discussions but it is seldom that, now mostly spinning theories- Seldom any nuts and bolts. I think the only real forum for nuts and bolts are papers and posters these days. The subject is theory now but any discussion of nuts and bolts would be welcome. You only need to create the interest. I expect to just write up a simple poster for the meeting and go from there. I am staying busy these days. After all this is all just a hobby for me and life goes on. I am hoping to find enough hot samples to fill my jug. The problems are the trade offs in COP, absolute power, temperature, I think Mitch got to around 20 with stimulation at MIT but very very low absolute power. I am doing a similar electrical stimulation of loaded powder but with C instead of ceramic separators to avoid sintering and it allows for greater currents and controls. Rossi* claims *to have high power but at lower COP (it gets lower each time I look). You need to be above 5 and preferably above 10 if you have to stimulate the samples. And then you need a big sample for more power. I just never could get much from Un-stimulated gas and Ni. I am stuck with Pd and D, but then the cost is through the roof for a reasonably large system. (however, additives seem to help) The big question is WHY is this effect so difficult to cause and WHY is the amount so small? This question requires a theory to answer. Do you have an answer? Ed Dennis ** ** -- CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com From: stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:13:48 -0700 Dennis, the CMNS group is the proper forum. Would you explain what you are proposing there? Ed Excuse me Ed, for mixing in, a small answer to the Big Question: - because the number/density of functional NAE is too small, the initial ones are exhausted fast and new ones are not formed. NAE-genesis is the crux of the problem. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
20 years is not possible. It will be in 2 years if industrialist get faster than naysayers. It will be 5 years in China at most (if not tomorrow). And if it gets back into the drawer, I will make it in 10 years in Indonesia. It cannot be 20 years, the devil is out of the box. Of course science, and probably western world will ignore that for 2-5 years. No hope to see an official body in science accepts LENR before 2 years after it works. As usual (we forget it). Maybe the mistake with LENR was to trust Science... Anyway not much choice, because practically science is needed, like engineering and money... But Science as a body refuse change. 2013/3/6 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: that is how delusion wins. note that initially it is a rational opinion, but with time it became a delusion because people are too much committed in an error . . . Delusion does not always win. Not everyone goes along with the DoE, * Nature* magazine, Wikipedia and other assorted strange bedfellows opposed to this research. Cold fusion has many supporters. As I said, I know that we do because of the audience at LENR-CANR.org. No one can predict the future. We may lose. I guess if I had to bet, I would bet we will lose, and the research will be forgotten 20 years from now. But it depends on politics and human nature, which cannot be predicted. Most cold fusion researchers are not doing themselves or the field any favors. People such as Rossi have helped the opposition. Still, there is reason to hope. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
The proper sites may be an answer for “difficult to cause”. But then there are step by step methods of producing decent cathodes- ( example-Letts, D. and Cravens, D., Cathode fabrication methods to reproduce the Letts-Cravens effect, in. ASTI-5 www.iscmns.org/, Asti, Italy, 2004) and fairly consistant co-dep systems that are known in the field. But I think the “small effect” is due to the movement of the active species. Temperature and stimulation do seem to increase the reaction rates. To me, that says it may be related to the movement of things in and out of the active regions.There must also be a thermal pathway out of the active areas (phonons? and corporative interactions over million? of atoms) to have a place to dump the Mev's of energy without destruction). But I shouldn’t dabble in theories in this case. I will prefer not to ask questions just to interoduce another theory. I prefer to work in the Edison mode of trial and error. (although a careful reader will notice my coauthoring papers with Peterin one case, Peter said try frequency X and it worked.).I will now bow out of theory talks. I will now go back to the lab. (I prefer to do my theories with tensors in General Rel.- my true love- OT ). Dennis Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 19:19:09 +0200 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com The big question is WHY is this effect so difficult to cause and WHY is the amount so small? This question requires a theory to answer. Do you have an answer? Ed - because the number/density of functional NAE is too small, the initial ones are exhausted fast and new ones are not formed. NAE-genesis is the crux of the problem.Peter -- Dr. Peter GluckCluj, Romaniahttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I don't understand why a partner would be kept with a secret identity. Anyone can say, I have a large US partner. I'm not saying he doesn't have one, I'm just saying it is curious. On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:37 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Ed, I sure looks like Rossi has produced real power. Not clear why you think he is bad at business. He has apparently allied himself with a large US company capable of producing “thousands of reactors per day” yet not causing sufficient excitement to stimulate much competition. We just have to wait and see how it pans out. I think Rossi has done great good by stimulating interest in LENR that was previously close to death. ** ** Alain, thanks for the link.
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Ed, I sure looks like Rossi has produced real power.Not clear why you think he is bad at business.He has apparently allied himself with a large US company capable of producing thousands of reactors per day yet not causing sufficient excitement to stimulate much competition.We just have to wait and see how it pans out.I think Rossi has done great good by stimulating interest in LENR that was previously close to death. Alain, thanks for the link.
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
It appears that you are seeing infinite COP as James suggested. You should be able to make a good impression upon the ICCF crowd particularly if you can show sufficient heating of your device without any drive. You should be prepared to open up the container after a demonstration that is well witnessed to allow interested parties to examine the materials within. They will be attempting to ensure that there is nothing strange occurring or that chemicals, batteries, and etc. are not hidden. As you imply, 1 watt is not a lot of power and I see that you are aware that when you attempt to extract energy that the reaction might collapse under loading. This is what is expected in my system models. Can I assume that you have a nickel-hydrogen type arrangement? Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 11:17 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up Infinite. He said The current system I am working off of is at 0.25 to 1 W with no input That's .25W/0W at minimum. On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:14 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Dennis, I would like to hear a little more about your experiment. What COP are you measuring at this time and are you able to determine the temperature of the reaction components? Any information would be greatly appreciated and some among this list might be able to offer suggestions. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 11:07 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up The current system I am working off of is at 0.25 to 1 W with no input. This iswith about 25 grams of sample(density about 3 gm/ml - metal in C). This is in a heavy metal sphere with gaspressure generatedin situ and sealed. The temperature is near room temp when not insulated. Higherpower densities can be reached by stimulation but at the expense of COP. I am hopingthat there will be a trade off of volume/surface area, stimulation and COP, heatgeneration and power extraction. Part of theproblem is making a simple variable heat path so that powerextraction and workingtemperature are balanced. But I havelikely said too much- this is not the proper forum for such things. With luck I will havea poster at ICCF for specifics. (But it will likely be ignored like my hightemp metal/gaswas at DC). Dennis Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:00:56 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ... I preferto try to take only a step of a factor of 10 or so with the LENR part . . . Where would that bring you in terms of power, temperature and power density? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Dennis, You just answered my last question. I guess I should have read through all the recent posts before asking. Actually Rossi still claims to achieve a COP of 6 which has been his specification for a very long time. Some of the earlier demonstrations may have yielded better, but they were not well controlled as far as is known. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 11:47 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up CMNS started (or restarted) with the intent of experimental discussions but it is seldom that, now mostly spinning theories- Seldom any nuts and bolts. I think the only real forum for nuts and bolts are papers and posters these days. I expect to just write up a simple poster for the meeting and go from there. I am staying busy these days. After all this is all just a hobby for me and life goes on. I am hoping to find enough hot samples to fill my jug. The problems are the trade offs in COP, absolute power, temperature, I think Mitch got to around 20 with stimulation at MIT but very very low absolute power. I am doing a similar electrical stimulation of loaded powder but with C instead of ceramic separators to avoid sintering and it allows for greater currents and controls. Rossi claims to have highpower but at lower COP (it gets lower each time I look). You need tobe above 5 and preferably above 10 if you have to stimulate the samples. And thenyou need a big sample for more power. I just never could get much from Un-stimulatedgas and Ni. I am stuck with Pd and D, but then the cost is through the roof for areasonably large system. (however, additives seem to help) Dennis CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com From: stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:13:48 -0700 Dennis, the CMNS group is the proper forum. Would you explain what you are proposing there? Ed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: The current system I am working off of is at 0.25 to 1 W with no input. This is with about 25 grams of sample (density about 3 gm/ml - metal in C). This is in a heavy metal sphere with gas pressure generated in situ and sealed. The temperature is near room temp when not insulated. That sounds promising! However, I think it calls for a good calorimeter. One of Ed's Seebeck calorimeters would be ideal, or the Thermonetics Seebeck. 0.25 to 1 W is too small to measure by any other means with confidence. As I said, Arata tried to do it by crude methods and the thermoelectric chip driving the camera focus motor. I think it was on the 1 W scale. It was not convincing. He should have used a Seebeck. With a good calorimeter and a professional presentation, you could convince a lot of people with that, and probably get proper funding. Higher power densities can be reached by stimulation but at the expense of COP. Then stay away from that. Better to have zero power input, and simple calorimetry, in my opinion. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Jed -interesting comment- As I have told you before I have a seebeck that is roughly 8 times as sensitive (based on V/watts) as Ed's and was made for a series of NRL experiments. But you seem to keep harping on that and your money connections.As usual your comments just set up straw men and are not well informed. Again you seem stuck in the: everyone's experiments should be done to prove the reality of CF and not to gather info for future applications. I personally think that running a load with a thermoelectic chip (if done long enough under load with no input) is good. You may wish to know that a seebeck is nothing but a bunch of thermoelectric chips and a volt meter (of no real load). Having stimulation or not depends on what you what to study. Dennis Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:10:09 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: The current system I am working off of is at 0.25 to 1 W with no input. This is with about 25 grams of sample (density about 3 gm/ml - metal in C). This is in a heavy metal sphere with gas pressure generated in situ and sealed. The temperature is near room temp when not insulated. That sounds promising! However, I think it calls for a good calorimeter. One of Ed's Seebeck calorimeters would be ideal, or the Thermonetics Seebeck. 0.25 to 1 W is too small to measure by any other means with confidence. As I said, Arata tried to do it by crude methods and the thermoelectric chip driving the camera focus motor. I think it was on the 1 W scale. It was not convincing. He should have used a Seebeck. With a good calorimeter and a professional presentation, you could convince a lot of people with that, and probably get proper funding. Higher power densities can be reached by stimulation but at the expense of COP. Then stay away from that. Better to have zero power input, and simple calorimetry, in my opinion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Because if it became known he had an agreement with a large, well know company (like GE) it would be strong confirmation that the E-Cat worked. This would highly stimulate competition. It could all be fraud, but I don't think so. Adrian Ashfield On 3/6/2013 1:44 PM, Jack Cole wrote: I don't understand why a partner would be kept with a secret identity. Anyone can say, I have a large US partner. I'm not saying he doesn't have one, I'm just saying it is curious. On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:37 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Ed, I sure looks like Rossi has produced real power.Not clear why you think he is bad at business.He has apparently allied himself with a large US company capable of producing “thousands of reactors per day” yet not causing sufficient excitement to stimulate much competition.We just have to wait and see how it pans out.I think Rossi has done great good by stimulating interest in LENR that was previously close to death. Alain, thanks for the link.
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Jed -interesting comment- As I have told you before I have a seebeck that is roughly 8 times as sensitive (based on V/watts) as Ed's and was made for a series of NRL experiments. That would be okay. But I think people might appreciate an instrument constructed and confirmed by someone else. But you seem to keep harping on that and your money connections. YOU keep harping on how old you are and how you can't pick up heavy equipment, and how unfair it is that people have not given you credit. You could have an army of grad students to do the (literal) heavy lifting. You can have credit, fame, and funding, or you can have your present noble, pure-hearted isolation from filthy lucre. But you can't have it both ways. Again you seem stuck in the: everyone's experiments should be done to prove the reality of CF and not to gather info for future applications. You need to prove the reality of *your claim*, not the reality of CF. You need to do this for pragmatic reasons if you want to accomplish anything. I do not think you are not going to succeed on a shoestring. You have not made much progress lately as far as I can tell. You were talking about 1 W reactions many years ago. You may wish to know that a seebeck is nothing but a bunch of thermoelectric chips and a volt meter (of no real load). Nothing but? No, not in my opinion. A properly designed Seebeck is a lot more than that. It is also a stable background (perhaps with a water envelope), good internal geometry, proven ability to move the sample around without affecting the output much, well stirred internal air, and carefully selected thermoelectric chips that do not drift and that respond in a linear fashion. It is also carefully and repeatedly calibrated before and after the test, with all the data published so we can have confidence in it. If you have something like that you will impress your audience. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: A properly designed Seebeck is a lot more than that. With an infinite COP all that's necessary is a room with a bunch of similar pots of water, one of which has the infinite COP device in it.
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: A properly designed Seebeck is a lot more than that. With an infinite COP all that's necessary is a room with a bunch of similar pots of water, one of which has the infinite COP device in it. With only one watt I do not think that would work well. Background changes in temperature would swamp the effect of the 1 W heat source. That was the problem with the open-air Arata demonstration and others like it I have seen. I am not saying it wouldn't work at all, but the data would be noisy and people would wonder if it wasn't the effect of the HVAC currents of air blowing on one dish and not the other, or what-have-you. With ~10 W in a small device your method would work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Hmm perhaps but one would think that if the water containers were covered Styrofoam coolers, the temperature differences might accumulate sufficiently to render the signal -- particularly given the distribution represented by the numerous control containers -- quite significant. Admittedly, I haven't done the arithmetic. On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: A properly designed Seebeck is a lot more than that. With an infinite COP all that's necessary is a room with a bunch of similar pots of water, one of which has the infinite COP device in it. With only one watt I do not think that would work well. Background changes in temperature would swamp the effect of the 1 W heat source. That was the problem with the open-air Arata demonstration and others like it I have seen. I am not saying it wouldn't work at all, but the data would be noisy and people would wonder if it wasn't the effect of the HVAC currents of air blowing on one dish and not the other, or what-have-you. With ~10 W in a small device your method would work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm perhaps but one would think that if the water containers were covered Styrofoam coolers, the temperature differences might accumulate sufficiently to render the signal . . . At that point you are talking about an isoperibolic calorimeter. You might as well go all the way and build a proper one like Mel Miles, Fleischmann or Bockris used. You might put it in a constant temperature bath, such as a fish tank with ping-pong balls floating on top. It has to be calibrated before and after the test, with a joule heater. Dennis Cravens knows how to do that. That would be fine. You can measure 0.25 to 1 W with something like that, with confidence. I prefer the Seebeck calorimeter myself, but it is up to the researcher to decide. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Quick arithmetic:
1m^2*.033W/(m*deltaK)*2deltaK/2in?W http://www.testardi.com/rich/calchemy2/
([{(1 * [meter^2]) * (0.033 * watt)} / {meter * deltaK}] * [2 *
deltaK]) / (2 * inch) ? watt
= 1.2992126 W
That's for styrofoam 2 inches thick and a cooler with total surface
area of 1m^2 and a 2 degree Kelvin temperature difference with
ambient.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:23 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm perhaps but one would think that if the water containers were
covered Styrofoam coolers, the temperature differences might accumulate
sufficiently to render the signal -- particularly given the distribution
represented by the numerous control containers -- quite significant.
Admittedly, I haven't done the arithmetic.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
A properly designed Seebeck is a lot more than that.
With an infinite COP all that's necessary is a room with a bunch of
similar pots of water, one of which has the infinite COP device in it.
With only one watt I do not think that would work well. Background
changes in temperature would swamp the effect of the 1 W heat source. That
was the problem with the open-air Arata demonstration and others like it I
have seen.
I am not saying it wouldn't work at all, but the data would be noisy and
people would wonder if it wasn't the effect of the HVAC currents of air
blowing on one dish and not the other, or what-have-you.
With ~10 W in a small device your method would work.
- Jed
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I don't think I have mentioned my age or being old. Only that I am getting older and with it comes physical limitations.For a while I was mistakenly given only a short time to live due to nano powder complications.I have never said lack of notice is unfair. It is very fair. Most of the significant work is done by those who go un-noticed. I still don’t know why you try to read into everyone’s motives and statements fame and money. I will leave monitoring army’s to others. And yes, I prefer isolation and doing things not as others direct but to follow my own dreams. (I normally come out every now and then (usually 3-4 years for ICCF meetings). I fully disclosed my calorimeter to NRL - and it does include such trival things as you mention. Although I did opt for water blocks instead of liquid water envelopes. They are more stable and reliable and avoid some other problems. I also have internal metal walls to decrease the problems of location of heat sources within the device (those are often overlooked or hand waved away). It also avoided air mixing problems by metal beads/powder.. and my room even boosts mu metal and copper screen cages, nested constant temp cabinets, chambers, room I think that it was used in part for the NRL lab design and should be in public domain out there somewhere. But I have said that to you before. How about trying to understand? I still think a good standalone with thermoelectric chip and a load is OK. I will leave it to you to worry about temperature controls, weighing, EM screening and what color to paint the box. I think you jump to quickly to conclusions as you did from a draft sketch of George's device. I prefer to avoid being judgmental until I have more facts. I tried and tried to make Ni H gas work with just temperature and not stimulation and I was unsuccessful. I have not been to Rossi's lab or even talked to him so I am not in a position to judge. Again all experiments do not have to prove LENR or go to high powers. It can be still a good experiment or endeavor to simply learn something new or even try something new. DennisDate: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:43:39 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Jed -interesting comment- As I have told you before I have a seebeck that is roughly 8 times as sensitive (based on V/watts) as Ed's and was made for a series of NRL experiments. That would be okay. But I think people might appreciate an instrument constructed and confirmed by someone else. But you seem to keep harping on that and your money connections. YOU keep harping on how old you are and how you can't pick up heavy equipment, and how unfair it is that people have not given you credit. You could have an army of grad students to do the (literal) heavy lifting. You can have credit, fame, and funding, or you can have your present noble, pure-hearted isolation from filthy lucre. But you can't have it both ways. Again you seem stuck in the: everyone's experiments should be done to prove the reality of CF and not to gather info for future applications. You need to prove the reality of your claim, not the reality of CF. You need to do this for pragmatic reasons if you want to accomplish anything. I do not think you are not going to succeed on a shoestring. You have not made much progress lately as far as I can tell. You were talking about 1 W reactions many years ago. You may wish to know that a seebeck is nothing but a bunch of thermoelectric chips and a volt meter (of no real load). Nothing but? No, not in my opinion. A properly designed Seebeck is a lot more than that. It is also a stable background (perhaps with a water envelope), good internal geometry, proven ability to move the sample around without affecting the output much, well stirred internal air, and carefully selected thermoelectric chips that do not drift and that respond in a linear fashion. It is also carefully and repeatedly calibrated before and after the test, with all the data published so we can have confidence in it. If you have something like that you will impress your audience. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Incorrect assumption.I have not been too successful with Ni H gas systems. And that nano Ni leaks through valves, chews up your pumps, clogs your gauges, suspends in the air for days, and messes with your lungs.(at one time they diagnosed me with pulmonary hypertension… not good) I might be seeing something sparking at HV but the input measurements are the pits. I do not trust them. In fact, one reason for trying to get a new potentially large application platform is that I would have to totally redo input measures for some systems. A conversion -stand alone- and being able to measure dc from batteries is much easier. In a quick nut shell- I am using Pd with additives (including Th and rare earths) in mesopore C and D2 gas. Think of it as a cross between Les Case's Pd in C material and Mitch Swartz' Nanor thing, with a twist of B fields and pulsed current excitation. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:00:12 -0500 .. ... Can I assume that you have a nickel-hydrogen type arrangement? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: For a while I was mistakenly given only a short time to live due to nano powder complications. Maybe next time it will not be a false alarm. All the more reason to get on with the work quickly. Why do all this work and then take it to the grave with you, the way Patterson and Case did? I see no point to doing research and then not publishing it. It is like cooking a meal and not eating it, or building houses and then burning them down. Okay, I will grant that research is fun, but without the consummation of sharing your results it seems like ashes in the mouth. A waste of life. Nihilistic. I have never said lack of notice is unfair. You have a short memory. It is very fair. Most of the significant work is done by those who go un-noticed. I still don’t know why you try to read into everyone’s motives and statements fame and money. I don't give a damn what your motives are or whether you want fame or money. I am saying that you must have money to do this experiment properly. With money will come fame. You can't get one without the other. You will either work in obscurity and fail, or you will accept funding and what comes with it. I fully disclosed my calorimeter to NRL - and it does include such trival things as you mention. Those things are not trivial. Although I did opt for water blocks instead of liquid water envelopes. They are more stable and reliable and avoid some other problems. I also have internal metal walls to decrease the problems of location of heat sources within the device (those are often overlooked or hand waved away). That sounds good! I think that it was used in part for the NRL lab design and should be in public domain out there somewhere. But I have said that to you before. How about trying to understand? How about giving me a URL to this design? I still think a good standalone with thermoelectric chip and a load is OK. May-bee. I doubt it. Especially not at only 0.25 W. But I could be wrong! Again all experiments do not have to prove LENR or go to high powers. It can be still a good experiment or endeavor to simply learn something new or even try something new. The only problem being that no one will believe your results are real, unless you get high power OR you use a really good calorimeter. It sounds like your NRL calorimeter will fill the bill. That's good! I look forward to seeing these results at ICCF18. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: And that nano Ni leaks through valves, chews up your pumps, clogs your gauges, suspends in the air for days, and messes with your lungs. (at one time they diagnosed me with pulmonary hypertension… not good) And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why I keep saying people should not do these experiments on a shoestring. That is why you need a fully equipped lab with safety equipment and expert assistance. Because this can be dangerous. In many ways. I rest my case. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I see no point to doing research and then not publishing it. It is like cooking a meal and not eating it, or building houses and then burning them down. Okay, I will grant that research is fun, but without the consummation of sharing your results it seems like ashes in the mouth. A waste of life. Nihilistic. In the wisdom of your years, how would you advise a lucky researcher who has discovered the foundations of the LENR process to avoid the pitfalls of others in the past? Please provide details. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: For a while I was mistakenly given only a short time to live due to nano powder complications. Maybe next time it will not be a false alarm. All the more reason to get on with the work quickly. Why do all this work and then take it to the grave with you, the way Patterson and Case did? I see no point to doing research and then not publishing it. It is like cooking a meal and not eating it, or building houses and then burning them down. Okay, I will grant that research is fun, but without the consummation of sharing your results it seems like ashes in the mouth. A waste of life. Nihilistic. I have never said lack of notice is unfair. You have a short memory. It is very fair. Most of the significant work is done by those who go un-noticed. I still don’t know why you try to read into everyone’s motives and statements fame and money. I don't give a damn what your motives are or whether you want fame or money. I am saying that you must have money to do this experiment properly. With money will come fame. You can't get one without the other. You will either work in obscurity and fail, or you will accept funding and what comes with it. I fully disclosed my calorimeter to NRL - and it does include such trival things as you mention. Those things are not trivial. Although I did opt for water blocks instead of liquid water envelopes. They are more stable and reliable and avoid some other problems. I also have internal metal walls to decrease the problems of location of heat sources within the device (those are often overlooked or hand waved away). That sounds good! I think that it was used in part for the NRL lab design and should be in public domain out there somewhere. But I have said that to you before. How about trying to understand? How about giving me a URL to this design? I still think a good standalone with thermoelectric chip and a load is OK. May-bee. I doubt it. Especially not at only 0.25 W. But I could be wrong! Again all experiments do not have to prove LENR or go to high powers. It can be still a good experiment or endeavor to simply learn something new or even try something new. The only problem being that no one will believe your results are real, unless you get high power OR you use a really good calorimeter. It sounds like your NRL calorimeter will fill the bill. That's good! I look forward to seeing these results at ICCF18. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I KNOW that some old-fashion industry executive accept to speak on LENR... Provided it stays private. I think it is easier to have business with Cuba or Iran, than to invest in cold fusion. as I said earlier, LENR will get commercial... but it can be blocked in (still) rich countries, by technical problems, and mostly by psychiatric problems leading to hypocritical over-precaution, funded by incumbent and preacher of apocalypse, afraid to loose their position. It will be reallowed when we get poor. ;-) 2013/3/6 Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com I don't understand why a partner would be kept with a secret identity. Anyone can say, I have a large US partner. I'm not saying he doesn't have one, I'm just saying it is curious. On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:37 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.netwrote: Ed, I sure looks like Rossi has produced real power. Not clear why you think he is bad at business. He has apparently allied himself with a large US company capable of producing “thousands of reactors per day” yet not causing sufficient excitement to stimulate much competition. We just have to wait and see how it pans out. I think Rossi has done great good by stimulating interest in LENR that was previously close to death. ** ** Alain, thanks for the link.
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
OK that quick guess arithmetic was interesting enough to motivate me to
look into the real numbers:
http://www.mrboxonline.com/8x6x7-styrofoam-coolers-p-6787.html
10 of those cost $55.50
They're 1.5in thick
They're 8x6x7 inside
They're 9.5x7.5x8.5 outside
Surface area 2*(9.5*7.5+9.5*8.5+7.5*8.5)in^2 = 431.5 in^2
Redoing the arithmetic:
431.5in^2*.033W/(m*deltaK)*2deltaK/1.5in?W
([{(431.5 * [inch^2]) * (0.033 * watt)} / {meter * deltaK}] * [2 *
deltaK]) / (1.5 * inch) ? watt
= 0.4822444 W
That looks good.
A distribution with 9 control data points and 1 experimental data
point providing 2 degrees C signal for only a half watt.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:31 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Quick arithmetic:
1m^2*.033W/(m*deltaK)*2deltaK/2in?W http://www.testardi.com/rich/calchemy2/
([{(1 * [meter^2]) * (0.033 * watt)} / {meter * deltaK}] * [2 * deltaK]) / (2
* inch) ? watt
= 1.2992126 W
That's for styrofoam 2 inches thick and a cooler with total surface area of
1m^2 and a 2 degree Kelvin temperature difference with ambient.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:23 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm perhaps but one would think that if the water containers were
covered Styrofoam coolers, the temperature differences might accumulate
sufficiently to render the signal -- particularly given the distribution
represented by the numerous control containers -- quite significant.
Admittedly, I haven't done the arithmetic.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
A properly designed Seebeck is a lot more than that.
With an infinite COP all that's necessary is a room with a bunch of
similar pots of water, one of which has the infinite COP device in it.
With only one watt I do not think that would work well. Background
changes in temperature would swamp the effect of the 1 W heat source. That
was the problem with the open-air Arata demonstration and others like it I
have seen.
I am not saying it wouldn't work at all, but the data would be noisy and
people would wonder if it wasn't the effect of the HVAC currents of air
blowing on one dish and not the other, or what-have-you.
With ~10 W in a small device your method would work.
- Jed
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I don't think I would take my secret to the grave. Most everything is publically accessible by those who look. I also think all the major points are out there. You may think that it is wasted if I haven't gone beyond 1 W publically in the last few years. However, I think that the finding of things like the THz frequencies and that stimulating the reaction is very important even if done at the 0.2 to 1W levels. I don't think that Patterson knew the answer. He was just lucky that the old jugs of electro-less plating materials worked. I don't think that he ever was able to know why they worked. And he spent a lot of time trying to find out. His work is still out there and I think that C.E. and his step son are still have the notes and are working to try to figure out what works. With Case it was only a matter of a few months between the time he thought he had the answer till his death. (a few months?? between calling McM. with his claims and his death and he was trying to get an independent viewer). I was sad to see his thermal measurements taken on a long pipe with the output over his pump (heat) on an aluminum rail. But his basic idea of Pd in C has been known since ’94. I find it interesting that on one hand you badger people for information in the now but you then criticize them for not having complete descriptions and information. It is virtually impossible to have live info and complete info. Where have I said unfair??? You are projecting your motives into mine. I acknowledged that my works often go unnoticed and unread and it is the reason that I am trying something different. I do not see that is saying it is unfair (unless your motive is fame and money). It is just life and the reason to change tactics. Please quit being judgemental and assigning motives to me that are not my own. Dennis Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:54:46 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: For a while I was mistakenly given only a short time to live due to nano powder complications. Maybe next time it will not be a false alarm. All the more reason to get on with the work quickly. Why do all this work and then take it to the grave with you, the way Patterson and Case did? I see no point to doing research and then not publishing it. It is like cooking a meal and not eating it, or building houses and then burning them down. Okay, I will grant that research is fun, but without the consummation of sharing your results it seems like ashes in the mouth. A waste of life. Nihilistic. I have never said lack of notice is unfair. You have a short memory. It is very fair. Most of the significant work is done by those who go un-noticed. I still don’t know why you try to read into everyone’s motives and statements fame and money. I don't give a damn what your motives are or whether you want fame or money. I am saying that you must have money to do this experiment properly. With money will come fame. You can't get one without the other. You will either work in obscurity and fail, or you will accept funding and what comes with it. I fully disclosed my calorimeter to NRL - and it does include such trival things as you mention. Those things are not trivial. Although I did opt for water blocks instead of liquid water envelopes. They are more stable and reliable and avoid some other problems. I also have internal metal walls to decrease the problems of location of heat sources within the device (those are often overlooked or hand waved away). That sounds good! I think that it was used in part for the NRL lab design and should be in public domain out there somewhere. But I have said that to you before. How about trying to understand? How about giving me a URL to this design? I still think a good standalone with thermoelectric chip and a load is OK. May-bee. I doubt it. Especially not at only 0.25 W. But I could be wrong! Again all experiments do not have to prove LENR or go to high powers. It can be still a good experiment or endeavor to simply learn something new or even try something new. The only problem being that no one will believe your results are real, unless you get high power OR you use a really good calorimeter. It sounds like your NRL calorimeter will fill the bill. That's good! I look forward to seeing these results at ICCF18. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
If you restrict research in this area to only large well funded groups, then there would be little left. D2 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:58:17 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: And that nano Ni leaks through valves, chews up your pumps, clogs your gauges, suspends in the air for days, and messes with your lungs. (at one time they diagnosed me with pulmonary hypertension… not good) And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why I keep saying people should not do these experiments on a shoestring. That is why you need a fully equipped lab with safety equipment and expert assistance. Because this can be dangerous. In many ways. I rest my case. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: If you restrict research in this area to only large well funded groups, then there would be little left. You misunderstand. My idea is to get funding for existing groups, before you accidentally kill yourselves. I suspect Ohmori killed himself by doing these experiments in an unsafe manner. Money can solve this problem, and you have the means to get money, so I recommend you use those means, even though you prefer to work without money. That is my recommendation, but I have no means of forcing it on you, or Rossi, or anyone else. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
You may want to look at aerogel insulationSearch ebay for aspen aerogel
insulation or the pourable kind from United Nuclear if you just want to have a
hot sample without the water heating. D2 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:50:52 -0600
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days..
hurry up
From: jabow...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
OK that quick guess arithmetic was interesting enough to motivate me to look
into the real numbers:
http://www.mrboxonline.com/8x6x7-styrofoam-coolers-p-6787.html
10 of those cost $55.50They're 1.5in thickThey're 8x6x7 insideThey're
9.5x7.5x8.5 outsideSurface area 2*(9.5*7.5+9.5*8.5+7.5*8.5)in^2 = 431.5 in^2
Redoing the arithmetic:
431.5in^2*.033W/(m*deltaK)*2deltaK/1.5in?W
([{(431.5 * [inch^2]) * (0.033 * watt)} / {meter * deltaK}] * [2 * deltaK]) /
(1.5 * inch) ? watt
= 0.4822444 WThat looks good.A distribution with 9 control data points and 1
experimental data point providing 2 degrees C signal for only a half watt.On
Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:31 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Quick arithmetic:
1m^2*.033W/(m*deltaK)*2deltaK/2in?W
([{(1 * [meter^2]) * (0.033 * watt)} / {meter * deltaK}] * [2 * deltaK]) / (2 *
inch) ? watt
= 1.2992126 W
That's for styrofoam 2 inches thick and a cooler with total surface area of
1m^2 and a 2 degree Kelvin temperature difference with ambient.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:23 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm perhaps but one would think that if the water containers were covered
Styrofoam coolers, the temperature differences might accumulate sufficiently to
render the signal -- particularly given the distribution represented by the
numerous control containers -- quite significant.
Admittedly, I haven't done the arithmetic.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
A properly designed Seebeck is a lot more than that.
With an infinite COP all that's necessary is a room with a bunch of similar
pots of water, one of which has the infinite COP device in it.
With only one watt I do not think that would work well. Background changes in
temperature would swamp the effect of the 1 W heat source. That was the problem
with the open-air Arata demonstration and others like it I have seen.
I am not saying it wouldn't work at all, but the data would be noisy and people
would wonder if it wasn't the effect of the HVAC currents of air blowing on one
dish and not the other, or what-have-you.
With ~10 W in a small device your method would work.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Dennis, You mentioned that Ni nanopowders linger in the air for a long time. Have you tried to use a powerful magnet to attract them out of the air? I wonder if such an arrangement would help keep the air safer for those performing this type of experiment? Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 3:43 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up Incorrectassumption. I have notbeen too successful with Ni H gas systems. And thatnano Ni leaks through valves, chews up your pumps, clogs your gauges, suspendsin the air for days, and messes with your lungs. (at onetime they diagnosed me with pulmonary hypertension… not good) I might be seeing something sparking at HV but the input measurements are the pits. I do nottrust them. In fact, one reason for trying to get a new potentially largeapplication platform is that I would have to totally redo input measures forsome systems. A conversion -stand alone- and being able to measure dc frombatteries is much easier. In a quicknut shell- I am using Pd with additives (including Th and rare earths) inmesopore C and D2 gas. Think of it as a cross between Les Case's Pd in Cmaterial and Mitch Swartz' Nanor thing, with a twist of B fields and pulsedcurrent excitation. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:00:12 -0500 .. ... Can I assume that you have a nickel-hydrogen type arrangement? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
The insulated water containers boxes must all be identical. Fabricating
from aerogel seems like asking for trouble if off-the-shelf Styrofoam is
adequate and it looks like it may be.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:05 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote:
You may want to look at aerogel insulation
Search ebay for aspen aerogel insulation
or the pourable kind from United Nuclear if you just want to have a hot
sample without the water heating.
D2
--
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:50:52 -0600
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10
days.. hurry up
From: jabow...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
OK that quick guess arithmetic was interesting enough to motivate me to
look into the real numbers:
http://www.mrboxonline.com/8x6x7-styrofoam-coolers-p-6787.html
10 of those cost $55.50
They're 1.5in thick
They're 8x6x7 inside
They're 9.5x7.5x8.5 outside
Surface area 2*(9.5*7.5+9.5*8.5+7.5*8.5)in^2 = 431.5 in^2
Redoing the arithmetic:
431.5in^2*.033W/(m*deltaK)*2deltaK/1.5in?W
([{(431.5 * [inch^2]) * (0.033 * watt)} / {meter * deltaK}] * [2 * deltaK]) /
(1.5 * inch) ? watt
= 0.4822444 W
That looks good.
A distribution with 9 control data points and 1 experimental data point
providing 2 degrees C signal for only a half watt.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:31 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Quick arithmetic:
1m^2*.033W/(m*deltaK)*2deltaK/2in?W http://www.testardi.com/rich/calchemy2/
([{(1 * [meter^2]) * (0.033 * watt)} / {meter * deltaK}] * [2 * deltaK]) / (2
* inch) ? watt
= 1.2992126 W
That's for styrofoam 2 inches thick and a cooler with total surface area of
1m^2 and a 2 degree Kelvin temperature difference with ambient.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:23 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm perhaps but one would think that if the water containers were
covered Styrofoam coolers, the temperature differences might accumulate
sufficiently to render the signal -- particularly given the distribution
represented by the numerous control containers -- quite significant.
Admittedly, I haven't done the arithmetic.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
A properly designed Seebeck is a lot more than that.
With an infinite COP all that's necessary is a room with a bunch of
similar pots of water, one of which has the infinite COP device in it.
With only one watt I do not think that would work well. Background changes
in temperature would swamp the effect of the 1 W heat source. That was the
problem with the open-air Arata demonstration and others like it I have
seen.
I am not saying it wouldn't work at all, but the data would be noisy and
people would wonder if it wasn't the effect of the HVAC currents of air
blowing on one dish and not the other, or what-have-you.
With ~10 W in a small device your method would work.
- Jed
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
yes, in my tubing I used Hepa filters (to slow them, and Neodymium magnets to try to keep them out of the parts). They really getinto pump oil, and make needle valves useless. I used out doors hood, .. etc. I now don't think that nano is needed. It is also why I am now using metals in C mesopore materials - a lot easier to handle. (yes, I posted a health warning and such on CMNS a year or so ago). I think now that you must have at least 10 million+ atoms in your material per thing for it to distribute the energy over the array of atoms without destroying your sites. (I.e. more fractional microns than a few nano) (yes, that piece of info was shared at the Navy Monterey meeting). People actually doing the experiments should know. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 17:07:34 -0500 Dennis, You mentioned that Ni nanopowders linger in the air for a long time. Have you tried to use a powerful magnet to attract them out of the air? I wonder if such an arrangement would help keep the air safer for those performing this type of experiment? Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 3:43 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up Incorrect assumption. I have not been too successful with Ni H gas systems. And that nano Ni leaks through valves, chews up your pumps, clogs your gauges, suspends in the air for days, and messes with your lungs. (at one time they diagnosed me with pulmonary hypertension… not good) I might be seeing something sparking at HV but the input measurements are the pits. I do not trust them. In fact, one reason for trying to get a new potentially large application platform is that I would have to totally redo input measures for some systems. A conversion -stand alone- and being able to measure dc from batteries is much easier. In a quick nut shell- I am using Pd with additives (including Th and rare earths) in mesopore C and D2 gas. Think of it as a cross between Les Case's Pd in C material and Mitch Swartz' Nanor thing, with a twist of B fields and pulsed current excitation. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:00:12 -0500 .. ... Can I assume that you have a nickel-hydrogen type arrangement? Dave
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
not really any fabricating the stuff (aspen kind) comes in mats and the
United Nuclear is a pourable grain. It work well. D2
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:12:15 -0600
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days..
hurry up
From: jabow...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
The insulated water containers boxes must all be identical. Fabricating from
aerogel seems like asking for trouble if off-the-shelf Styrofoam is adequate
and it looks like it may be.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:05 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote:
You may want to look at aerogel insulation
Search ebay for aspen aerogel insulation
or the pourable kind from United Nuclear if you just want to have a hot sample
without the water heating.
D2
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:50:52 -0600
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days..
hurry up
From: jabow...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
OK that quick guess arithmetic was interesting enough to motivate me to look
into the real numbers:
http://www.mrboxonline.com/8x6x7-styrofoam-coolers-p-6787.html
10 of those cost $55.50They're 1.5in thickThey're 8x6x7 insideThey're
9.5x7.5x8.5 outsideSurface area 2*(9.5*7.5+9.5*8.5+7.5*8.5)in^2 = 431.5 in^2
Redoing the arithmetic:
431.5in^2*.033W/(m*deltaK)*2deltaK/1.5in?W
([{(431.5 * [inch^2]) * (0.033 * watt)} / {meter * deltaK}] * [2 * deltaK]) /
(1.5 * inch) ? watt
= 0.4822444 WThat looks good.A distribution with 9 control data points and 1
experimental data point providing 2 degrees C signal for only a half watt.On
Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:31 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Quick arithmetic:
1m^2*.033W/(m*deltaK)*2deltaK/2in?W
([{(1 * [meter^2]) * (0.033 * watt)} / {meter * deltaK}] * [2 * deltaK]) / (2 *
inch) ? watt
= 1.2992126 W
That's for styrofoam 2 inches thick and a cooler with total surface area of
1m^2 and a 2 degree Kelvin temperature difference with ambient.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:23 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm perhaps but one would think that if the water containers were covered
Styrofoam coolers, the temperature differences might accumulate sufficiently to
render the signal -- particularly given the distribution represented by the
numerous control containers -- quite significant.
Admittedly, I haven't done the arithmetic.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
A properly designed Seebeck is a lot more than that.
With an infinite COP all that's necessary is a room with a bunch of similar
pots of water, one of which has the infinite COP device in it.
With only one watt I do not think that would work well. Background changes in
temperature would swamp the effect of the 1 W heat source. That was the problem
with the open-air Arata demonstration and others like it I have seen.
I am not saying it wouldn't work at all, but the data would be noisy and people
would wonder if it wasn't the effect of the HVAC currents of air blowing on one
dish and not the other, or what-have-you.
With ~10 W in a small device your method would work.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In the wisdom of your years, how would you advise a lucky researcher who has discovered the foundations of the LENR process to avoid the pitfalls of others in the past? I recommend they do what good scientists have always done, and what people such as McKubre, Miles and Storms have done: * Use the best instruments you can. Get definitive results at a high s/n ratio. * Produce a large signal if you can. That is, a lot of heat. Within reason; Rossi goes too far. * Write a professional report, and publish it in a proceedings or journal if you can. * Invite scientists to visit, and demonstrate the experiment to them. Have them write independent evaluations. McKubre has done a great job at this. * Shop around your results. That is, use the reports and evaluations to get funding. For a university professor, this would be philanthropic funding I guess. For others, it might be corporate funding. I know many people who have expressed interest in funding these experiments. In some cases with strings attached. Dennis Cravens has done many of these things. Just not all of them. His reports were cited by Fleischmann, me and others as among the most important in the literature. He has credibility. Cravens is pretty good at calorimetry, so I expect he really does have 1 W. He just needs to prove it with proper calibrations, and many people will believe him. When Mel Miles did all of the above, exactly according to form, the Navy responded by demoting him from Distinguished Fellow of the Institute to stock room clerk. So it does not always work! Sometimes, instead of getting funding, you get a kick in the ass. But I think the situation has changed and this time, if someone would follow through, they might get funded. My point is, a person who can reliably produces 0.25 to 1 W should have proper funding to push this experiment forward. Even if he would prefer to work at home informally, I think that is irresponsible. Even dangerous. I do not think it is a good idea to do this on a shoestring, with hazardous materials that might cause health problems or death. Cravens and others like him are important, professional scientists. They should be treated as such. And they should act like it! He should be working at multi-million-dollar fully equipped laboratory, with people assisting him on aspects of the experiment he is not expert at, or he does not have time for. So should Rossi. This is important research, not a hobby or a game. I am sick of amateur cold fusion research, conducted in sloppy, cramped labs with cheap or homemade equipment. Rossi with his damn meter without the SD card just *irks * me to no end. Cravens or Rossi may say they prefer to work at home, informally. Of course they are free to do that. It is none of my business, and not up to me in any sense. But I think it is a senseless waste of talent, time and money. I am a strong believer in *doing things right*. I like to see professional presentations. I like to see organized reports with all the i's dotted and t's crossed, like the ones Mel Miles or Pam Boss write. Or McKubre, or Storms. I like NIST standard units, and tables and end notes properly labelled and formatted. Hey, I am programmer. We have a fetish for details. Also, let's see computer data properly collected. I'll bet NI would be willing to give Cravens or Rossi a zillion dollars worth of the best equipment, for the asking. You can say that stuff is just the outward appearance and we should look deeper at the real quality of the report. Okay, yeah, I get it. But it * pains* me to see sloppy, half-baked papers, especially from brilliant people such as Arata! The guy makes up fruitcake words and does ass-backwards calorimetry. Why can't he hire someone to do it right?!? He is one of the most famous scientists in Japan. They named a building after him at a national university for crying out loud. So why does he publish papers that would not pass a high school science class?! It boggles the mind. I know that scientists looking at this field see that kind of thing and dismiss the results. I hear that from them all the time. Frankly, some of Dennis Cravens' papers are unprofessional in presentation. Lacking in detail. Not as bad as Arata by any means, but they could be better. Some are really great, as I said. The only sloppy lab I ever saw that knocked my socks off was Ed Storms' basement. Ed is a consummate professional who can make beautiful, precision equipment anywhere, so where ever he wants to do it is fine with me. Others, I think, should go for a more professional setting. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 5 Mar 2013 15:48:28 -0800: Hi, [snip] Speaking of staged drama, there is always the message of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Reaction_%28film%29 The script writer for this film is, or at least used to be, a lurker on Vortex. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
How do you know this? The film did not get good reviews (like LENR) but still seems to have grossed over $60,000,000... warped priorities, it would seem. Had that sum gone into the technology, we might be seeing life imitating art. We're definitely in the wrong business - if access to funds is any criterion for success ... -Original Message- From: Robin Speaking of staged drama, there is always the message of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Reaction_%28film%29 The script writer for this film is, or at least used to be, a lurker on Vortex. :)
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
the CF film that is hard to find is Bullseye (with Michael Caine and Roger Moore) D2 From: jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 19:36:16 -0800 How do you know this? The film did not get good reviews (like LENR) but still seems to have grossed over $60,000,000... warped priorities, it would seem. Had that sum gone into the technology, we might be seeing life imitating art. We're definitely in the wrong business - if access to funds is any criterion for success ... -Original Message- From: Robin Speaking of staged drama, there is always the message of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Reaction_%28film%29 The script writer for this film is, or at least used to be, a lurker on Vortex. :)
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Why? I have highly competent, multigenerational engineering contacts at the University of Illinois at C/U. Can they get a demonstration without being drawn into a waste of time? On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 10 days remaining! LENR Distributed Power Units By George Miley
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
If he does not have the technology, he can license it, the value added is the CHP configuration. The worst risk is that it works. 2013/3/5 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Why? I have highly competent, multigenerational engineering contacts at the University of Illinois at C/U. Can they get a demonstration without being drawn into a waste of time? On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 10 days remaining! LENR Distributed Power Units By George Miley
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Forgive me, but this idea has no value. The design proposes to use a slug of powder to create a high temperature that is converted to electric power that drives a motor that drives a fan. No provision is made for control of temperature, stimulation of the LENR reaction, or efficient transfer of heat energy. This is as valueless as a drawing on the back of a napkin for the design a nuclear reactor without even knowing how much U235 would be required as fuel. This is an engineering concept of a toy that has no meaning. Can the LENR field be actually this desperate for ideas? Ed On Mar 5, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: If he does not have the technology, he can license it, the value added is the CHP configuration. The worst risk is that it works. 2013/3/5 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Why? I have highly competent, multigenerational engineering contacts at the University of Illinois at C/U. Can they get a demonstration without being drawn into a waste of time? On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 10 days remaining! LENR Distributed Power Units By George Miley
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
From: Edmund Storms * [snip] motor that drives a fan. No provision is made for control of temperature . Wait a minute. Why doesn't the airflow from the fan control the temperature by removing heat from the fins which are themselves heated by the TEG ? Are you complaining that he did not show heat sensors and computer circuitry used to control airflow? You do realize that only a fraction of the electricity generated from the TEG drives the fan ? Presumably airflow is metered by a temperature sensor (not shown) but engineers do not need to see every detail, as it is implied and obvious. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I'm complaining because any use of LENR will have to take much more into account than this very simplified designed describes. What value does this design have? It is a obvious engineering solution to removing heat from a source. It does not solve the basic problem that prevents LENR from working at all. Would you give me money to study LENR if all I provided was an idealized heat exchanger? The decision of whether to give money to study LENR will not depend on an engineering design, so why take this route? Why propose a toy concept using a phenomenon that is not understood, is not accepted, and for which no proof of concept exists. The other proposals do not have this handicap. I'm not suggesting that money not be requested. I'm only asking it be done in a serious way that does not look silly. Ed On Mar 5, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Ø [snip] motor that drives a fan. No provision is made for control of temperature … Wait a minute. Why doesn’t the airflow from the fan control the temperature by removing heat from the fins which are themselves heated by the TEG ? Are you complaining that he did not show heat sensors and computer circuitry used to control airflow? You do realize that only a fraction of the electricity generated from the TEG drives the fan ? Presumably airflow is metered by a temperature sensor (not shown) but engineers do not need to see every detail, as it is implied and obvious. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I'm complaining because any use of LENR will have to take much more into account than this very simplified designed describes. What value does this design have? It is a obvious engineering solution to removing heat from a source. It does not solve the basic problem that prevents LENR from working at all. Would you give me money to study LENR if all I provided was an idealized heat exchanger? I have to agree with Ed on this. I have criticized Dennis Cravens on similar grounds; i.e., the Model A does not make the demonstration easier to understand or more believable. If you can prove the cold fusion device produces heat, you best do that by the simplest means, which is calorimetry. Make the best calorimeter you can. I do not see any point to adding on a toy device. (The best calorimeter might not be the most precise or expensive, by the way.) If the toy was necessary to control the reaction then it would make sense. For example, if heat removal is the key to stabilizing the reaction. I do not think that is the case. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If you can prove the cold fusion device produces heat, you best do that by the simplest means, which is calorimetry. Wait a minute. Aren't you the guy that keeps saying the best proof is a self running machine? Closed loop?
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Wait a minute. Aren't you the guy that keeps saying the best proof is a self running machine? Closed loop? Oh yeah. Sure, if you can pull that off on a reasonably large scale. But a small toy-like device would not be convincing because a battery can be hidden in it. Yes, you can run it for a long time to overcome that objection but there is induction or a fine wire or what-have-you. I remember as a kid making HO scale railroad gadgets with lights and moving parts that seemed stand-alone. I was assuming this would be a physically small device. Not sure of the details. The one that Dennis Cravens is talking about is ~10 W I think. That's too small for a convincing self-running machine. My gut feeling is that he should stick to a calorimeter. Somewhere around ~50 W, where the heat become undeniably tactile and you can produce significant electricity, maybe look at a toy. Arata made a toy at around 1 or 2 W with analog watch motor. It was unconvincing. Maybe I am confused about the scale or the use of the word toy, which may not imply a small device, but rather a simplified proof of principle device. Assuming Rossi's gadgets are real, just having one the size of a shoebox producing a kilowatt or so for week would be all the proof you need. Make it a hot water heater. The simplest method of HVAC calorimetry would be fine. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Jed and I have an agreement to disagree. I personally don’t think that it all needs to be about proof or commercialization. After 24 years and many papers, I don’t think that “proof” is needed any longer. Proof is already there for those that wish to read the literature. Practical methods have been listed for those who what to do experiments. The problem is they don’t read and never visit a working lab. How many of them ever visited Case’s or Lett’s or Gimpel’s or my lab?? I will leave the “prove it to me” crowd to their own experiments and discussions. People talk and talk about experiments and never pick up a soldering iron or bottle of heavy water. They say do this and that but never do anything themselves. I have done most of the experiments that I wrote up on my own nickel- others are welcome to use their own ideas and do the same. I have just grown tired of doing experiments and want to have some fun and try some applications. It would be easy to just sit and type but I need a change of pace for my own motivation and peace of mind. You can only turn knobs for so long before you yearn for something else and I only have a few years of strength left to lift those Stainless steel vacuum chambers and such. Laugh if you will at my attempts but I am trying and doing what I can, with what I have, where I am (Roosevelt- paraphrase). Perhaps George just wants to try an application for his own pleasure. It is his path to choose. Be supportive and tolerant and let him travel it in peace. DennisDate: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 17:36:49 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I'm complaining because any use of LENR will have to take much more into account than this very simplified designed describes. What value does this design have? It is a obvious engineering solution to removing heat from a source. It does not solve the basic problem that prevents LENR from working at all. Would you give me money to study LENR if all I provided was an idealized heat exchanger? I have to agree with Ed on this. I have criticized Dennis Cravens on similar grounds; i.e., the Model A does not make the demonstration easier to understand or more believable. If you can prove the cold fusion device produces heat, you best do that by the simplest means, which is calorimetry. Make the best calorimeter you can. I do not see any point to adding on a toy device. (The best calorimeter might not be the most precise or expensive, by the way.) If the toy was necessary to control the reaction then it would make sense. For example, if heat removal is the key to stabilizing the reaction. I do not think that is the case. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
so are you saying that small self running devices are not useful as proof? This seems at odds with what you told me. DennisDate: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 18:13:44 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I wrote: Assuming Rossi's gadgets are real, just having one the size of a shoebox producing a kilowatt or so for week would be all the proof you need. Make it a hot water heater. The simplest method of HVAC calorimetry would be fine. I guess what I am saying here is that a calorimeter is a self-running device, in a sense. It is the simplest version of a self-running machine. Especially with a gas loaded reaction. Arata's device supposedly ran for weeks with no input. As I said, it was driving a thermoelectric chip which drove a small analog watch motor, which made a piece of paper spin. Sometimes. When the heat was high. It was less impressive than you might think. When I saw it I thought, this would be a whole lot better with some real calorimetry instead of that watch motor. Arata's calorimetry is usually of very poor quality. This sure was. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I will post this up on Cold Fusion Now. But can anyone say what we are voting for? is it for a chance to speak? funding? The website does not explain much... I would like to give some more info than just please vote. Ruby On 3/5/13 11:04 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 10 days remaining! LENR Distributed Power Units By George Miley -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: I personally don’t think that it all needs to be about proof or commercialization. Well, it does if you want funding. Not if you are doing it for fun. After 24 years and many papers, I don’t think that “proof” is needed any longer. Proof is already there for those that wish to read the literature. I agree completely with that! In this case, we are not talking about proof that cold fusion exists but rather proof that: The implementation of cold fusion I am showing you here is well-controlled and it produces a reasonably high power density and temperature. Practical methods have been listed for those who what to do experiments. Not terribly practical. In my upcoming talk, I cite Fleischmann, Cravens and Storms. Fleischmann tells what kind of Pd to use; Cravens at ICCF4 tells how to prepare it; and Storms (How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect) tells more about how to prepare and also how to winnow out cathodes. Together these do constitute a recipe. But it takes a year to get a puny reaction that can only be measured with a good calorimeter. It will not impress a typical investor, alas. As for the Ni-H experiments, unless Rossi is real, I have no idea where you can find a reliable way to do the experiment. The problem is they don’t read and never visit a working lab. A lot of people who do read are unable to make a reliable reaction without a terrific amount of work. I will leave the “prove it to me” crowd to their own experiments and discussions. And they will leave you without a penny. If that does not bother you, fine, but I have heard you kvetch about it in the past. You can't expect support unless you meet them halfway. I have just grown tired of doing experiments and want to have some fun and try some applications. Frankly, I don't care for this dilettante approach. If I won the lottery and had money to burn, I would not give you much if your only goal is to have fun. Perhaps George just wants to try an application for his own pleasure. It is his path to choose. Be supportive and tolerant and let him travel it in peace. I am supportive in a sense I guess, but it is useless activity. I don't see why I should care about it. Science is only meaningful when the results are shared, and the results can only be shared when they are expressed in the idiom of science. Otherwise scientists will not understand you. I guess I have a low regard for fun. That is American puritanism winning out over my Caribbean hey mon, have some rum! piratical roots. I did love that move Pirates of the Caribbean. Commercialized nonsense but it spoke to me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: so are you saying that small self running devices are not useful as proof? It is a little complicated. The one that Arata made was too small. It did not impress me or the others who saw it. We could even imagine local temperature differences in the room producing that effect. Something on a larger scale would be useful proof. It is hard to quantify exactly what I mean, but that was the first actual self-running machine, and it was a disappointment. A calorimeter would have been better. If you can scale it up a tad above Arata, your are golden. I think perhaps to the point where the heat is palpable. That would make it very difficult to fake. Scale it up to a Rossi device and you can pitch out all science-experiment-scale instruments. Just use an ordinary thermometer and a graduated cylinder. Heck, just feel it and use your common sense. Rossi is right about that. His problem is that he chucks out the HVAC scale instruments too. Or he uses them ass-backwards without even plugging in the damn SD card, probably to make himself look bad. I suppose. Who knows? This is really a matter of taste. As I said, a calorimeter IS a self-running machine. The distinction is somewhat artificial. It is a matter of taste, but not just my taste. We are talking about the taste of people with gigabucks burning a hole in their pockets, so what they want to see should be important to anyone who wants this field to survive. If all you want to do is have fun and you don't really care whether humanity gets cold fusion or not, then you should do it any way your heart desires. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
OK, it's another chance to speak on April 4 - at MIT! On 3/5/13 3:28 PM, Ruby wrote: I will post this up on Cold Fusion Now. But can anyone say what we are voting for? is it for a chance to speak? funding? The website does not explain much... I would like to give some more info than just please vote. Ruby On 3/5/13 11:04 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 10 days remaining! LENR Distributed Power Units By George Miley -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I agree 100% Terry..the best way -by far- to convince the majority of skeptics is a self-running machine. Maybe the only way. There are tons of calorimetry data already at the watt and subwatt level. We need some drama at this stage. A self-runner should be high on the list. Speaking of staged drama, there is always the message of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Reaction_%28film%29 But don't chuckle too loudly as it could very easily be the case that LENR does involve a certain kind of chain reaction to reach a reliable level of operation. Of course, it is NOT a neutron chain reaction, as in fission, but it could involve subatomic bosons of some kind instead, or even a QM probability field critical-mass level. If there is such a requirement, and who is to say that there isn't - then something akin to a critical-mass of nanopowder will provide the basis of a self-runner, and the material cost is too expensive for anyone without deep pockets to do on their own - even a University would balk at the up-front cost. For the sake of argument, let's say one of Miley's graduate assistants ran a computer simulation based on the nanopowder of Arata, Ahern and others - and Lenuco based its proposal on that simulation. it envisions the need for say 20 kilograms of 10 nm nickel alloy. The going price is around $17/gram, but in this volume QSI would do it for $200,000. This kind of circumstance may never get done without ARPA-E money. In fact, we should applaud any effort to jump-start LENR by using a much larger format. It simply hasn't been done and it is hard to rule out until it is done. From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: If you can prove the cold fusion device produces heat, you best do that by the simplest means, which is calorimetry. Wait a minute. Aren't you the guy that keeps saying the best proof is a self running machine? Closed loop?
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
But this is not a demonstrated device. It is a drawing of what Miley would like to see work. I could provide a drawing also, but where would I get the fuel? The fuel is the problem. Once a fuel that makes a lot of heat for long periods is available, the engineering design will follow. This is getting the cart before the horse. In fact, it is a proposed design of a cart before the horse is even known to exist. Suppose the best design is a thin coating of active material on a heat pipe to which a source of ions is supplied, which is a likely configuration. The design Miley suggested would not be useful. The purpose of submitting this design is to get funding to explore LENR, not to show how it can be applied. Once the phenomenon is understood, the application designs will be endless. Ed On Mar 5, 2013, at 4:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Wait a minute. Aren't you the guy that keeps saying the best proof is a self running machine? Closed loop? Oh yeah. Sure, if you can pull that off on a reasonably large scale. But a small toy-like device would not be convincing because a battery can be hidden in it. Yes, you can run it for a long time to overcome that objection but there is induction or a fine wire or what-have-you. I remember as a kid making HO scale railroad gadgets with lights and moving parts that seemed stand-alone. I was assuming this would be a physically small device. Not sure of the details. The one that Dennis Cravens is talking about is ~10 W I think. That's too small for a convincing self-running machine. My gut feeling is that he should stick to a calorimeter. Somewhere around ~50 W, where the heat become undeniably tactile and you can produce significant electricity, maybe look at a toy. Arata made a toy at around 1 or 2 W with analog watch motor. It was unconvincing. Maybe I am confused about the scale or the use of the word toy, which may not imply a small device, but rather a simplified proof of principle device. Assuming Rossi's gadgets are real, just having one the size of a shoebox producing a kilowatt or so for week would be all the proof you need. Make it a hot water heater. The simplest method of HVAC calorimetry would be fine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I agree 100% Terry….the best way -by far- to convince the majority of skeptics is a self-running machine. ** ** Maybe the only way. There are tons of calorimetry data already at the watt and subwatt level. We need some drama at this stage. A self-runner should be high on the list. But not when it is done in a piss-poor implementation the way Arata did it. That's my point. He proved you can make a self-running machine that does not even come close to convincing *me*, and I am an easy sell. A self running machine has to incorporate some design elements that make it obvious the thing is not fake. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I just think that Dennis could get a lot of attention if the media caught on to a vehicle running around a track for a day, then a week, then a month . . . That little Bunny has been a great ad for batteries. It has survived for . . . how many years? It is now a icon. Go, Dennis!
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I just posted on my Free Energy Truth Facebook page. We have over 19,000 members, so should get a vote or two ;-) Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: Ruby r...@hush.com Date: Wed, March 06, 2013 9:28 am To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I will post this up on Cold Fusion Now. But can anyone say what we are voting for? is it for a chance to speak? funding? The website does not explain much... I would like to give some more info than just please vote. Ruby On 3/5/13 11:04 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 10 days remaining! LENR Distributed Power Units By George Miley -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
JedA self running machine has to incorporate some design elements that make it obvious the thing is not fake. OK, you are in the proof mode again..OK what are your specific requirements?What elements do you hope to see? Dennis
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Proof: Use a machine with a mass, M, to raise the temperature of a body of water, L, from a starting temperature of C1 to C2, in time T, using P for input power (batteries or measured electric power.) Any values that surpass known chemical means will be satisfactory. Any LENR system that can't heat up a tub of water more efficiently than an electric coil is not ready for turbo fans and thermoelectric anything. Rossi was able to obfuscate his October results by the same tactic of using a heat exchanger in a similar way. - Brad On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:15 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: -- JedA self running machine has to incorporate some design elements that make it obvious the thing is not fake. OK, you are in the proof mode again.. OK what are your *specific *requirements? What elements do you hope to see? Dennis
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: JedA self running machine has to incorporate some design elements that make it obvious the thing is not fake. OK, you are in the proof mode again.. OK what are your *specific *requirements? I started a new thread to untangle the confusion: You need an electric generator with electrolysis but not gas loading. As a general rule, the simpler you can make it, the better. Assuming we are talking about gas loading where no electrolysis or electric power is needed, then: Below a certain power level and power density, you need some sort of conventional laboratory-scale calorimetry. I guess it is around 10 to 50 W, depending on the operating temperature. Above that you can use the Rossi approach with HVAC style instruments and sense of touch. I think I speak for a broader audience when I say the simpler the better. I have discussed this with a broad range of people. Do not add an electric generator unless you *must have one* to keep the reaction going. Do not add anything you do not need (such as a Model A Ford!). It will confuse the issue and distract from the point you are trying to prove. That which you *do not need* you *should not have*. You add more ways for the experiment to go wrong, and you make people wonder what you are up to. People are not stupid. They can see that a large chunk of your experiment serves no purpose. When I say fake what I really mean is both fake and/or badly designed. The two amount to the same thing. A fake is where the researcher tries to fool other people; a poor design is where the researcher fools himself. Arata's experiments are badly designed. I am sorry to say, I have pretty much concluded that Celani's recent experiments was badly designed -- as McKubre said in Korea. Rossi's experiments are actually pretty good in design, but atrocious in implementation!!! I, or anyone else, could fix his problems in a half-hour, and make his experiments completely believable. I, and many others, have suggested to him various ways to do this, which he has steadfastly ignored. That is what makes me think he is deliberately obfuscating. He isn't stupid! Experiments by FP, Miles, McKubre or Storms are the epitome of elegance, and transparent understand-ability. Every component is there for a purpose. The purpose is obvious. There is nothing you do not need that distracts from the goal of the experiment, or confuses the viewer. These experiments all use conventional calorimetry as opposed to a self-sustaining machine or HVAC large-scale calorimetry. They had no choice about that. They could not do it on a larger scale. If you can scale it up a little from the 1990s FP style experiments, you can simplify the calorimetry and make things easier to understand and therefore more believable, which enhances the presentation. As I said, the goal should be prove to the audience: The implementation of cold fusion I am showing you here is well-controlled and it produces a reasonably high power density and temperature. What elements do you hope to see? As I said, the specifics depend on whether it is electrolysis or gas loading, and what the power density, temperature and other operating characteristics are. A Rossi cell a couple of liters in size running at 1 kW would be ideal for any purpose. Better by far than his 1 MW reactor. If I had that, I could bring a billion dollars into this field in a few months. Rossi could too, if he could only put aside his ego and act in his own best interests. Without knowing the specific operating capabilities of a particular device it is difficult to spell out what would make the best demonstration. I can generalize, as I have done here. I could be a lot more specific if I knew the technical details: size, shape, temperature, power. Not only that, but I could ask the people who matter what they want to see, and I could present the experiment to them in a way they will appreciate. I am pretty good at explaining things. Better than most researchers, I daresay. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Because the scientific establishment is so certain LENR doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter what tests are run by anybody or academic group. It will always be instrument error or “claimed to be” or the error du jour. The scientific establishment is an abstraction. It is not a real body. There is no single group constituting that establishment that meets in a building somewhere, like a Congress, and reaches unanimous conclusions. Even if a majority of scientists remain unconvinced by a good demonstration, thousands of others will be convinced. I know this because I get ~10,000 visitors to LENR-CANR.org every week. A significant fraction of them are convinced. It is impossible to say how many, but I am sure it is in the tens of thousands. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf Rossi might have easily convinced a hundred thousand engineers and scientists. As he repeatedly said, I will do no tests. That meant he was not trying to convince anyone other than a few investors and customers. He is trying to keep it secret, just as Patterson did. I hope I’m wrong but having followed this since day one it looks like the only proof they will accept is commercial sale of working units. Let’s hope Rossi’s 1 MW Hot Cat plant really is being built and will surface soon. Let us hope so. But even if it exists I expect Rossi will do all that he can to prevent people from find out, or from believing it. Many other inventors throughout the ages have done this, stretching back to the 18th century. - Jed
