RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
again, be sure to see Letts' IE issue #112 article next month. I don't really know about a "catalyst". However, I do find the use of addition of alloys that lower the energy of vacancy of formation are useful. examples: Cu in Ni, Au in Pd, Sn in Ti,... I know that some are opposed to the concept of vacancies being relevant- However, lowering the energy for their formation seem useful. I envision it as allowing for ease of H or D flux through the material and allowing more rapid shifts from equilibrium. The other useful additive is ammonia or CO to help remove oxide covers of Ni powders. However, I prefer to reduce the metal in situ and avoid oxide complications. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 20:41:11 -0400 Eric, Rossi has done an excellent job of hiding the details of his catalyst. The facts will come out before long if production begins in earnest on his system. Do you have any idea what function is performed by his catalyst? My first thoughts are that it facilitates the breaking up of the hydrogen molecules into individual atoms somewhat like what happens when a spark passes though the low energy gas. This is just a guess since DGT appears to achieve the same goal with their system. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:32 PM, David Roberson wrote: I have begged Rossi to produce a curve of energy generated versus temperature applied to his material to no avail. With that type of information one can begin to actually engineer a device that functions on demand provided the material is not too inconsistent. Btw, I've come to the working hypothesis that Rossi really does have a "catalyst" (just as he has always claimed). The catalyst in this instance would either be heat activated or possibly activated from electrical stimulation (I assume there is not much difference in the resulting behavior). When the catalyst kicks in, at the right threshold or level of electrical stimulation, one would see more of an heat effect. I suppose this might or might not be accompanied with runaway, but the two are not necessarily the same -- increased activity, on one hand, and runaway, above and beyond such an increase, on the other. It would be interesting to see the results of your model with the effect of a catalyst added in. I assume in Rossi's case the catalyst is temperature activated (e.g., a thermionic beta emitter). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 5:41 PM, David Roberson wrote: Do you have any idea what function is performed by his catalyst? > I can only guess. My guess at this point is that a beta emitter is involved here. Perhaps it is stimulating rydberg states in the hydrogen, or perhaps it is altering the electron charge density in the nickel lattice, or perhaps both things are going on. Whatever it is, I assume it increases the rate of p+d tunneling by many orders of magnitude. The resulting highly unstable [pd]* intermediate state decays by dumping its energy directly into the electronic structure of the metal rather than yielding a gamma. This heats up the electronic structure by about 5 MeV in this case, which might or might not back into the reaction. The 3He that is born would be nearly motionless. A few weeks ago I wrote up a short discussion that goes into greater detail here: http://rolling-balance.blogspot.com/2013/08/lenr-and-thermionic-emission.html > My first thoughts are that it facilitates the breaking up of the hydrogen > molecules into individual atoms somewhat like what happens when a spark > passes though the low energy gas. This is just a guess since DGT appears > to achieve the same goal with their system. > I wouldn't be surprised if whatever is going on facilitates dissociation. Note that hydrogen dissociation occurs in connection with an increase in the surrounding charge density, as the molecular hydrogen migrates into the metal. About DGT's sparks -- my working assumption is that these are to stimulate the catalyst, perhaps directly or perhaps through heat (I suspect they are using a catalyst similar in nature to Rossi's). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
Eric, Rossi has done an excellent job of hiding the details of his catalyst. The facts will come out before long if production begins in earnest on his system. Do you have any idea what function is performed by his catalyst? My first thoughts are that it facilitates the breaking up of the hydrogen molecules into individual atoms somewhat like what happens when a spark passes though the low energy gas. This is just a guess since DGT appears to achieve the same goal with their system. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:32 PM, David Roberson wrote: I have begged Rossi to produce a curve of energy generated versus temperature applied to his material to no avail. With that type of information one can begin to actually engineer a device that functions on demand provided the material is not too inconsistent. Btw, I've come to the working hypothesis that Rossi really does have a "catalyst" (just as he has always claimed). The catalyst in this instance would either be heat activated or possibly activated from electrical stimulation (I assume there is not much difference in the resulting behavior). When the catalyst kicks in, at the right threshold or level of electrical stimulation, one would see more of an heat effect. I suppose this might or might not be accompanied with runaway, but the two are not necessarily the same -- increased activity, on one hand, and runaway, above and beyond such an increase, on the other. It would be interesting to see the results of your model with the effect of a catalyst added in. I assume in Rossi's case the catalyst is temperature activated (e.g., a thermionic beta emitter). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
The point about the heat transfer into the beads increasing with temperature differential is well taken. Also, as you say, the beads offer an excellent sink for any energy being internally generated and flowing through the surface area of the spheres. The net result is that the sphere looks outwards and sees a thermal resistance into which it delivers its power. My model of Rossi's ECAT suggests that the instantaneous slope of temperature rise as a function of power exiting the device is one of the key factors that determines when thermal run away begins. This is another way to describe the thermal resistance facing the device. The other factor is the instantaneous slope of power generated by the device material as a function of the temperature applied to that material. When the product of these factors becomes greater than unity thermal run away can begin to occur. This is the point where positive feedback begins to dominate the behavior. You can manipulate either of these factors to achieve an unstable operating point. Your thoughts about putting the sphere within an insulating gel appears to be sound. I guess the main question is what happens as the device heats up. Does the magnetic effect of the Sm Co get wiped out by the rising temperature? When this occurs, does the heat generating mechanism cease, causing the system to cool? Something of this nature might escape observation if it happens quickly. I don't understand why the gas needs to be circulating yet, but apparently convection alone might not be adequate. Is there reason to believe that this movement extracts used gas molecules away from the metal surface allowing fresh input? Or, do you suspect that this movement is required to take away heat from the reaction sites? I am fascinated to hear that you have several replication attempts being conducted. It should be obvious to anyone that LENR is at work in your design when the behavior continues for a long time period and this might be the demonstration we have been waiting for. Even the most profound skeptic would have a difficult time explaining how you must be cheating. Of course, they can always suggest that some RF generator is driving the sphere from afar. I suppose that someone with a tightly closed mind can always propose a method of some nature. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 6:34 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo I was using Sm Co based magnetic powder. Curie point around 700C but it is only useable up to about 250C. (I expect some degradation of the material in hot H/D gas. Remember the old parking lot demo at ICCF-4 with the Samarium cobalt? I can't remember the couple's name at the moment. I am not sure about the thermal runaway. I have never been over 150C with it. (limits of my calorimeter and plastic parts). I would think that the Al bead bath would be a fairly good heat sink. Remember the transfer to the sink goes up with temp differentials. One of the "replicators" has made their own hot bead bath and will be trying at elevated temperatures. My first inclination was to submerge the whole thing into aerogel and a dewar. But, as Les Case found out, you have to have a thermal gradient or you have to circulate the gas through the powder or, as I am doing now, use some external stimulation for non-equilibrium hydrogen/deuterium. I am seeing a better results with a little D in with the H for Ni systems. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:19:13 -0400 Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering how to compare this list of numbers with the observation at the conference. This result makes me curious as to whether or not the device reaches thermal run away at some drive temperature. Perhaps the components you have chosen tend to fall apart before the required drive temperature is achieved. This demonstration should make an impact upon those who witness it provided they believe that it runs for the extended time you mention. Is there any chance that you can construct one that hold together thermally until run away begins? I suspect that the magnetic source powder would fail before that temperature is reached. In that case, would a large external field perform the required task? Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo oops you are right K I convert them over as I was doing some kinetic fits. Sorry From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 23:51:13 +0200 Aren’t thetemperatures below in K instead °C? I’m pretty sure the water bath wasn’tat 397°C … neither 292°C
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
David Roberson wrote: It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this > experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the > input function is not present. > That's 'cause there is no input! It is all heat after death (as we call it). It resembles Arata's first experiments with Zr-Ni. Cravens does have to heat up the whole environment, presumably because Ni does not absorb H at lower temperatures, but he heats up the blank in the same environment, to the same extent, so this is the local ambient temperature. There is no extra heat or stimulation going into the cold fusion cell. It is a splendid demonstration. One of the best in the history of the field. It is a lot better than Dennis himself realizes, I think. He told me he sees little difference between this and some of the other leading experiments. I pointed out some crucial differences: 1. This is heat after death; no input. Like Arata, as I said, only way better calorimetry. 2. The heat is stable. That's important! 3. It uses cheap, widely available materials, like Rossi. 4. It appears to be reproducible. I hope it is. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
I agree Jed. My comment was made to point out that the energy is being produced internally as a result of elevated temperature. This is an ideal indication of LENR activity. No input as such is required! Of course, the best possible proof to those who fail to listen would be to witness a thermal run away with no wires attached. I have begged Rossi to produce a curve of energy generated versus temperature applied to his material to no avail. With that type of information one can begin to actually engineer a device that functions on demand provided the material is not too inconsistent. The process reminds me of the work that was done during WWII toward determining the amount of material needed for a critical mass. In this case it would be the critical mass required to reach thermal run away under controlled conditions. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo David Roberson wrote: It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is not present. That's 'cause there is no input! It is all heat after death (as we call it). It resembles Arata's first experiments with Zr-Ni. Cravens does have to heat up the whole environment, presumably because Ni does not absorb H at lower temperatures, but he heats up the blank in the same environment, to the same extent, so this is the local ambient temperature. There is no extra heat or stimulation going into the cold fusion cell. It is a splendid demonstration. One of the best in the history of the field. It is a lot better than Dennis himself realizes, I think. He told me he sees little difference between this and some of the other leading experiments. I pointed out some crucial differences: 1. This is heat after death; no input. Like Arata, as I said, only way better calorimetry. 2. The heat is stable. That's important! 3. It uses cheap, widely available materials, like Rossi. 4. It appears to be reproducible. I hope it is. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
I was using Sm Co based magnetic powder. Curie point around 700C but it is only useable up to about 250C. (I expect some degradation of the material in hot H/D gas. Remember the old parking lot demo at ICCF-4 with the Samarium cobalt? I can't remember the couple's name at the moment. I am not sure about the thermal runaway. I have never been over 150C with it. (limits of my calorimeter and plastic parts). I would think that the Al bead bath would be a fairly good heat sink. Remember the transfer to the sink goes up with temp differentials. One of the "replicators" has made their own hot bead bath and will be trying at elevated temperatures. My first inclination was to submerge the whole thing into aerogel and a dewar. But, as Les Case found out, you have to have a thermal gradient or you have to circulate the gas through the powder or, as I am doing now, use some external stimulation for non-equilibrium hydrogen/deuterium. I am seeing a better results with a little D in with the H for Ni systems. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:19:13 -0400 Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering how to compare this list of numbers with the observation at the conference. This result makes me curious as to whether or not the device reaches thermal run away at some drive temperature. Perhaps the components you have chosen tend to fall apart before the required drive temperature is achieved. This demonstration should make an impact upon those who witness it provided they believe that it runs for the extended time you mention. Is there any chance that you can construct one that hold together thermally until run away begins? I suspect that the magnetic source powder would fail before that temperature is reached. In that case, would a large external field perform the required task? Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo oops you are right K I convert them over as I was doing some kinetic fits. Sorry From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 23:51:13 +0200 Aren’t the temperatures below in K instead °C? I’m pretty sure the water bath wasn’t at 397°C … neither 292°C From: DJ Cravens [mailto:djcrav...@hotmail.com] Sent: vendredi 20 septembre 2013 23:14 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo E vs. temp was not done at the demo. However below are some typical (average) values from some old lab runs. I did not "calibrate" at the demo. I only showed that the sample was warmer than the control. That was the only point that was attempted there so there was no claim of amount of energy but it was around 4 watts. I did not want to confuse things and there was no time to calibrate. Just one sphere was hotter than its environment- that was it. The important point is that excess increases with temperature. You may want wait till the next issue of IE comes out to see some empirical models (Letts, in #112) for better data. Letts has fitted hundreds of data sets. temp C excess W 292 0.2 312 0.6 332 1.2 352 3.9 372 6.2 397 7.1 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:27 -0400 It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is not present. It would be educational to have a plot of energy generation versus temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo -Original Message-From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote:> http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf >> Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. "Can you make me a chargerfor my Tesla car?" Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to thebed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing youwere)?
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > See: > > http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. "Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car?" Charming.
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:32 PM, David Roberson wrote: I have begged Rossi to produce a curve of energy generated versus > temperature applied to his material to no avail. With that type of > information one can begin to actually engineer a device that functions on > demand provided the material is not too inconsistent. > Btw, I've come to the working hypothesis that Rossi really does have a "catalyst" (just as he has always claimed). The catalyst in this instance would either be heat activated or possibly activated from electrical stimulation (I assume there is not much difference in the resulting behavior). When the catalyst kicks in, at the right threshold or level of electrical stimulation, one would see more of an heat effect. I suppose this might or might not be accompanied with runaway, but the two are not necessarily the same -- increased activity, on one hand, and runaway, above and beyond such an increase, on the other. It would be interesting to see the results of your model with the effect of a catalyst added in. I assume in Rossi's case the catalyst is temperature activated (e.g., a thermionic beta emitter). Eric
RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
again, watch for Lett's IE article next month. There is a least that model that helps suggests some operational conditions. ..heat and alloying to drop that energy of vacancy of formation are the keys. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:32:11 -0400 I agree Jed. My comment was made to point out that the energy is being produced internally as a result of elevated temperature. This is an ideal indication of LENR activity. No input as such is required! Of course, the best possible proof to those who fail to listen would be to witness a thermal run away with no wires attached. I have begged Rossi to produce a curve of energy generated versus temperature applied to his material to no avail. With that type of information one can begin to actually engineer a device that functions on demand provided the material is not too inconsistent. The process reminds me of the work that was done during WWII toward determining the amount of material needed for a critical mass. In this case it would be the critical mass required to reach thermal run away under controlled conditions. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering how to compare this list of numbers with the observation at the conference. This result makes me curious as to whether or not the device reaches thermal run away at some drive temperature. Perhaps the components you have chosen tend to fall apart before the required drive temperature is achieved. This demonstration should make an impact upon those who witness it provided they believe that it runs for the extended time you mention. Is there any chance that you can construct one that hold together thermally until run away begins? I suspect that the magnetic source powder would fail before that temperature is reached. In that case, would a large external field perform the required task? Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo oops you are right K I convert them over as I was doing some kinetic fits. Sorry From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 23:51:13 +0200 Aren’t thetemperatures below in K instead °C? I’m pretty sure the water bath wasn’tat 397°C … neither 292°C From:DJ Cravens [mailto:djcrav...@hotmail.com] Sent: vendredi 20 septembre 201323:14 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens reporton NI Week demo E vs. temp was not done at thedemo. However below are some typical (average) values from some old lab runs. I did not "calibrate" at the demo. I only showed that thesample was warmer than the control. That was the only point that was attemptedthere so there was no claim of amount of energy but it was around 4watts. I did not want to confuse things and there was no time tocalibrate. Just one sphere was hotter than its environment- that was it. The important point is that excess increases with temperature. You may want wait till the next issue of IE comes out to see someempirical models (Letts, in #112) for better data. Letts has fittedhundreds of data sets. temp C excess W 292 0.2 312 0.6 332 1.2 352 3.9 372 6.2 397 7.1 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:27 -0400 It isnot clear how any form of energy gain is associated with thisexperiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy,but the input function is not present. It would be educational to have aplot of energy generation versus temperature. Dave -OriginalMessage- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: > http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf >> Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. "Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car?" Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
the guy that said that was an owner of a Tesla and had billions. I have his card and he said call him when I have a charger. :) I wish. He said he wanted the first fusion car. I told him he could have the second one. :) I have one ready to just charge as soon as I start getting net electrical energy. I was excited and thought last year I was ready. But it now looks years away. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hohlr...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo Not yet. Just a quote from the IE article. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Fartphone - Reply message - From: "Jones Beene" To: Subject: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo Date: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 PM -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: > http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf >> Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. "Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car?" Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
the costs is fairly significant.(pd, chemicals, specialized C...) The main cost is "opportunity costs". It takes a LOT of time in material preparations that would detract me from my existing efforts which seem much more useful and practical. You get much better results at elevated temperatures with electrical stimulation. I will say that several people are attempting replication. I would say wait a while until the replications are completed. I have been at this long enough to know that a "one off" is not that significant. Replication is very important. However, I feel that is only good when done by independent third parties.It should be noted that the chemical preps are not easy and require some finesse and risk taking. Although, if someone is really interested, I would say just start with Case's material and then heat it-- being sure that there is a volume for convections, a temperature gradient across the material, and a non trivial B field. If you recall, the He-4 measures made at SRI was with commercially available Pd in C in a sphere having a thermal gradient. Measuring exact power levels is tricky with thermal gradients. You will want to read Letts' empirical model next month. Basically, the excess goes about exp. with temp and energy of vacancy of formation, a linear with mass, and B field. Again, I have made some material, but would not recommend the time, expense, and risk for someone just starting. Start with the commercial Pd/C materials (alfa aesar, 5%- replace water with D2O a few times) D2 Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:42:37 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com How much does it cost to get the NI demo device duplicated? On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:14 PM, DJ Cravens wrote: E vs. temp was not done at the demo. However below are some typical (average) values from some old lab runs. I did not "calibrate" at the demo. I only showed that the sample was warmer than the control. That was the only point that was attempted there so there was no claim of amount of energy but it was around 4 watts. I did not want to confuse things and there was no time to calibrate. Just one sphere was hotter than its environment- that was it. The important point is that excess increases with temperature. You may want wait till the next issue of IE comes out to see some empirical models (Letts, in #112) for better data. Letts has fitted hundreds of data sets. temp C excess W 292 0.2 312 0.6 332 1.2 352 3.9 372 6.2 397 7.1 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:27 -0400 It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is not present. It would be educational to have a plot of energy generation versus temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: > http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf >> Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. "Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car?" Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
Not yet. Just a quote from the IE article. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Fartphone - Reply message - From: "Jones Beene" To: Subject: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo Date: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 PM -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: > http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf >> Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. "Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car?" Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
oops you are right K I convert them over as I was doing some kinetic fits. Sorry From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 23:51:13 +0200 Aren’t the temperatures below in K instead °C? I’m pretty sure the water bath wasn’t at 397°C … neither 292°C From: DJ Cravens [mailto:djcrav...@hotmail.com] Sent: vendredi 20 septembre 2013 23:14 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo E vs. temp was not done at the demo. However below are some typical (average) values from some old lab runs. I did not "calibrate" at the demo. I only showed that the sample was warmer than the control. That was the only point that was attempted there so there was no claim of amount of energy but it was around 4 watts. I did not want to confuse things and there was no time to calibrate. Just one sphere was hotter than its environment- that was it. The important point is that excess increases with temperature. You may want wait till the next issue of IE comes out to see some empirical models (Letts, in #112) for better data. Letts has fitted hundreds of data sets. temp C excess W 292 0.2 312 0.6 332 1.2 352 3.9 372 6.2 397 7.1 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:27 -0400 It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is not present. It would be educational to have a plot of energy generation versus temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo -Original Message-From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote:> http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf >> Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. "Can you make me a chargerfor my Tesla car?" Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to thebed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing youwere)?
RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
E vs. temp was not done at the demo. However below are some typical (average) values from some old lab runs. I did not "calibrate" at the demo. I only showed that the sample was warmer than the control. That was the only point that was attempted there so there was no claim of amount of energy but it was around 4 watts. I did not want to confuse things and there was no time to calibrate. Just one sphere was hotter than its environment- that was it. The important point is that excess increases with temperature. You may want wait till the next issue of IE comes out to see some empirical models (Letts, in #112) for better data. Letts has fitted hundreds of data sets. temp C excess W 292 0.2 312 0.6 332 1.2 352 3.9 372 6.2 397 7.1 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:27 -0400 It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is not present. It would be educational to have a plot of energy generation versus temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: > http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf >> Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. "Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car?" Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
Arent the temperatures below in K instead °C? Im pretty sure the water bath wasnt at 397°C neither 292°C _ From: DJ Cravens [mailto:djcrav...@hotmail.com] Sent: vendredi 20 septembre 2013 23:14 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo E vs. temp was not done at the demo. However below are some typical (average) values from some old lab runs. I did not "calibrate" at the demo. I only showed that the sample was warmer than the control. That was the only point that was attempted there so there was no claim of amount of energy but it was around 4 watts. I did not want to confuse things and there was no time to calibrate. Just one sphere was hotter than its environment- that was it. The important point is that excess increases with temperature. You may want wait till the next issue of IE comes out to see some empirical models (Letts, in #112) for better data. Letts has fitted hundreds of data sets. temp C excess W 292 0.2 312 0.6 332 1.2 352 3.9 372 6.2 397 7.1 _ To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:27 -0400 It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is not present. It would be educational to have a plot of energy generation versus temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: > http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf >> Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. "Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car?" Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
How much does it cost to get the NI demo device duplicated? On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:14 PM, DJ Cravens wrote: > E vs. temp was not done at the demo. > However below are some typical (average) values from some old lab runs. > I did not "calibrate" at the demo. I only showed that the sample was > warmer than the control. That was the only point that was attempted there > so there was no claim of amount of energy but it was around 4 watts. I > did not want to confuse things and there was no time to calibrate. Just > one sphere was hotter than its environment- that was it. > > The important point is that excess increases with temperature. > You may want wait till the next issue of IE comes out to see some > empirical models (Letts, in #112) for better data. Letts has fitted > hundreds of data sets. > > temp C excess W 292 0.2 312 0.6 332 1.2 352 3.9 372 6.2 > 397 7.1 > > ------------------ > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo > From: dlrober...@aol.com > Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:27 -0400 > > > It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this > experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the > input function is not present. It would be educational to have a plot of > energy generation versus temperature. > > Dave > -Original Message- > From: Jones Beene > To: vortex-l > Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo > > > -Original Message- > From: Terry Blanton > > Jed Rothwell wrote: > > http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf > > >> Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. "Can you make me a charger > for my Tesla car?" Charming. > > Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the > bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. > > ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you > were)? > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is not present. It would be educational to have a plot of energy generation versus temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: > http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf >> Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. "Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car?" Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: > http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf >> Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. "Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car?" Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
