Re: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:35 PM, David Roberson wrote: > I would like to thank DGT for allowing me to view this particular video. > I have worked within product development labs in the past and feel that the > one seen in the video is not unlike many of those. The equipment that is > required depends upon what they are testing or upon whether or not they are > trying out a new idea. We do not know exactly what procedures are being > conducted so I think it is premature to assume the worst. > > It was not very long ago when some of our major skeptics were suggesting > that even this level of display was not available. It was suggested that > DGT was effectively a shell company and that no product exists. This video > clearly proves that they were wrong. > > So let's give DGT a chance to reveal more of their product information > before we shoot the messenger. What they have shown is an important first > start of much to come. I prefer to be an optimist that sees the glass half > full of water instead of one who sees it half empty. > > I will add to what Dave says- the DGT people > have a responsibility and they have to perform the experiments as they want, not as a result from the summation of myriads of advices given by e-paper tigers and amateur experts. If they want to test first the bare reactors they know why and everybody who thinks that there is no life and no technology without flow calorimetry NOW! - has to wait. I remember e.g. when we made the first industrial synthesis of ethyl chlorformiate, this was not discussed by the entire factory, the union and the Party activists. They let us working in peace and stayed far- the raw materials are ethyl alcohol and chlorine and the product is a nasty tear-gas. If you have not worked in the lab of DGT, you cannot know why the pipes are so long or how long will stay the hydrogen bottle there. > > -Original Message- > From: Nigel Dyer > To: vortex-l > Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2012 10:57 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing > > Despite the shortcomings of the experimental setup, I would have thought > it should be possible to use dataplots such as these to characterise the > thermal characteristics of the a dummy hyperion system providing we know > the power input. This should give usable figures for heat capacities > and thermal couplings. > > This could then be used to give an indication of the excess heat from > the 'real' reactor, and it should then be possible to give a good > estimation of the error range of any results obtained this way. I seem > to remember that Mary Yugo(?) got someone to do something along these > lines with a previous set of data. > > Some of the uncertainty would be removed if the two runs were done with > the same reactor, first with the Ni/H in the reactor, and then second > with a dummy powder with approximately the same thermal capacity. The > electrical heat input in the second run should mirror the heat input > that was used for the first run. > > If we there are two reactors, then doing a real test on both and then a > dummy test on both would be even better as it might allow additional > quantification of the errors. > > Nigel > > On 30/01/2012 15:01, Jones Beene wrote: > > What is curious is the chart on the laptop. Blow it up. Of course, we do not > > know what it purports to show, but the two spikes are indicative of what > > have been known to appear in many early H2 fractional hydrogen experiments > > in the past. > > > > Jones > > > > > > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing
I would like to thank DGT for allowing me to view this particular video. I have worked within product development labs in the past and feel that the one seen in the video is not unlike many of those. The equipment that is required depends upon what they are testing or upon whether or not they are trying out a new idea. We do not know exactly what procedures are being conducted so I think it is premature to assume the worst. It was not very long ago when some of our major skeptics were suggesting that even this level of display was not available. It was suggested that DGT was effectively a shell company and that no product exists. This video clearly proves that they were wrong. So let's give DGT a chance to reveal more of their product information before we shoot the messenger. What they have shown is an important first start of much to come. I prefer to be an optimist that sees the glass half full of water instead of one who sees it half empty. Dave -Original Message- From: Nigel Dyer To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2012 10:57 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing Despite the shortcomings of the experimental setup, I would have thought t should be possible to use dataplots such as these to characterise the hermal characteristics of the a dummy hyperion system providing we know he power input. This should give usable figures for heat capacities nd thermal couplings. This could then be used to give an indication of the excess heat from he 'real' reactor, and it should then be possible to give a good stimation of the error range of any results obtained this way. I seem o remember that Mary Yugo(?) got someone to do something along these ines with a previous set of data. Some of the uncertainty would be removed if the two runs were done with he same reactor, first with the Ni/H in the reactor, and then second ith a dummy powder with approximately the same thermal capacity. The lectrical heat input in the second run should mirror the heat input hat was used for the first run. If we there are two reactors, then doing a real test on both and then a ummy test on both would be even better as it might allow additional uantification of the errors. Nigel On 30/01/2012 15:01, Jones Beene wrote: What is curious is the chart on the laptop. Blow it up. Of course, we do not know what it purports to show, but the two spikes are indicative of what have been known to appear in many early H2 fractional hydrogen experiments in the past. Jones
Re: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing
I agree that it looks messy and unprofessional. If my lab would look anything like it, I'd be fired on the spot. My main concern wouldn't be the distance to a pressurized container or any other particularity but rather the entire setup. This is supposed to be a nuclear reactor where nobody really understands how it works and how it behaves. Would anybody here simply span such a thing in a vice, pop a thermometer in, don't attach any aparent means of cooling and see how ever many kW it may or may not spit out? And stand right next to it, totally relaxed without the slightest safety measure - not even protective glasses or gloves or a glass wall or somebody with a fire extinguisher or, well, anything? If this is anything other than their very first experiments from a year or so ago, then at least my confidence in Defkalion would take somewhat of a plunge.
Re: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing
Jones Beene wrote: > Based on what they were saying many months ago - I expected to see at this > time the glycol heat exchanger, and evidence of steady levels of ongoing > energy - not just a few power surges. Their announcement said the full system with the glycol loops will be ready for independent testing soon. This is the so-called "bare" system. See: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=926 So yes, DGT have at least "stretched the truth" beyond what is considered to > be total honesty. Where did you get that information? How do you know they stretched the truth? If you do not have a solid basis for that information, and you are only speculating, I suggest you put a lid on it. As far as I know they are getting 20 times more output power than input. I mean steady power, not spikes. By the way, a discussion of the video is here: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=955 In this discussion Defkalion notes that they have other labs. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing
There seems to be the assumption that the video is an example of their latest and greatest level of heat generation! I may have missed it, but there is no such statement by DGT to that effect... it is just an example of *some* testing going on. Unfortunately, this smacks of the same kind of inconclusive stuff we saw from Rossi... Since we know they monitor the Collective, perhaps they just wanted to counter some of MY's repetitious suspicions and accusations that they didn't even have a lab... which were obviously nothing more than baseless speculation. Back to a 'holding pattern'... :-) -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 7:46 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing From: Peter Gluck * * Jones, and why do they claim > 650C and an experiment with duration of 48/48 hours? Well, maybe so, Peter - but that is not in evidence in the video we are talking about. If they have indeed gotten to both that level of heat, and for that length of time - in the same experiment with a heat sink - then that is a huge advance. But so far as far as they admit, the gain is far less than you think because they say no coolant. No delta T is mentioned. Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing
Practically speaking, *power* on demand is what a user wants. Significant energy production would suggest that the device can supply power on demand. Most people have no use for the concept of *energy*, except theoretical fizzists and ultility companies who charge per unit of energy consumed. harry On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Apparently Daniel, you are not clear on the difference between power and > energy? > > From: Daniel Rocha > > In the brochures, they state 10sKWs, not as spikes. For a so short deadline, > they must be lying and more else, don't know how to pull so much energy. > They also lied about knowing what is Rossi's method/catalyst. > > If they are so much behind expectations, why would they say 10KW or more for > each Hyperion? Are they lying? > No, in fact I would not be surprised if the spikes were not more than 10kW. > Mills' (Jansson) was showing 50 kW spikes, four or more years ago with a > similar reactor. > The problem as always, is progressing from kW to kW-hrs. > > There is no indication here that this has been accomplished or even > approached. > > J. > > > > > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com >
Re: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing
This video has shown they have a lab something our departed "colleague" Mary Yugo has denied. Instead of speculating in advance let's wait what will they show us. A basic problem is HOW MANY Ni (Transition Metal) - H ANOMALIES DO EXIST? Peter On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > From: Peter Gluck > * > * Jones, and why do they claim > 650C and an experiment with duration > of 48/48 hours? > > Well, maybe so, Peter - but that is not in evidence in the video we are > talking about. > > If they have indeed gotten to both that level of heat, and for that length > of time - in the same experiment with a heat sink - then that is a huge > advance. But so far as far as they admit, the gain is far less than you > think because they say no coolant. No delta T is mentioned. > > Sure - they have the Ni-H power anomaly, first seen back in 1990, and yes > they may be able to get the device up to 650 C, which is a surprise - but > if > you do not remove heat via a heat sink, then what do you really have? > > When you insulate well - and then add only the small amount of lost heat > through the insulation (10 watts or so) - then - sure you can come back in > 48 hours and find the same 650 you started out with two days earlier. That > may indicate a power anomaly but it is not where we expected them to be > now. > > Based on what they were saying many months ago - I expected to see at this > time the glycol heat exchanger, and evidence of steady levels of ongoing > energy - not just a few power surges. This is what they were claiming back > then. > > So yes, DGT have at least "stretched the truth" beyond what is considered > to > be total honesty. Not that Mills is not FAR worse in doing the same. > > Jones > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing
Despite the shortcomings of the experimental setup, I would have thought it should be possible to use dataplots such as these to characterise the thermal characteristics of the a dummy hyperion system providing we know the power input. This should give usable figures for heat capacities and thermal couplings. This could then be used to give an indication of the excess heat from the 'real' reactor, and it should then be possible to give a good estimation of the error range of any results obtained this way. I seem to remember that Mary Yugo(?) got someone to do something along these lines with a previous set of data. Some of the uncertainty would be removed if the two runs were done with the same reactor, first with the Ni/H in the reactor, and then second with a dummy powder with approximately the same thermal capacity. The electrical heat input in the second run should mirror the heat input that was used for the first run. If we there are two reactors, then doing a real test on both and then a dummy test on both would be even better as it might allow additional quantification of the errors. Nigel On 30/01/2012 15:01, Jones Beene wrote: What is curious is the chart on the laptop. Blow it up. Of course, we do not know what it purports to show, but the two spikes are indicative of what have been known to appear in many early H2 fractional hydrogen experiments in the past. Jones
RE: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing
From: Peter Gluck * * Jones, and why do they claim > 650C and an experiment with duration of 48/48 hours? Well, maybe so, Peter - but that is not in evidence in the video we are talking about. If they have indeed gotten to both that level of heat, and for that length of time - in the same experiment with a heat sink - then that is a huge advance. But so far as far as they admit, the gain is far less than you think because they say no coolant. No delta T is mentioned. Sure - they have the Ni-H power anomaly, first seen back in 1990, and yes they may be able to get the device up to 650 C, which is a surprise - but if you do not remove heat via a heat sink, then what do you really have? When you insulate well - and then add only the small amount of lost heat through the insulation (10 watts or so) - then - sure you can come back in 48 hours and find the same 650 you started out with two days earlier. That may indicate a power anomaly but it is not where we expected them to be now. Based on what they were saying many months ago - I expected to see at this time the glycol heat exchanger, and evidence of steady levels of ongoing energy - not just a few power surges. This is what they were claiming back then. So yes, DGT have at least "stretched the truth" beyond what is considered to be total honesty. Not that Mills is not FAR worse in doing the same. Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing
Defkalion's commercial reactor (described in their data sheet) has a large hydrogen store. According to most accounts of the Ni-H reaction, the H2 consumed in the reaction is minute. Their commercial reactor is listed as having a 2 liter bottle at 200 bar. Where is all of this gas going to exhaust? Defkalion mentions that the housing is charged with argon to dilute any discharged hydrogen. However, hydrogen is flammable in concentrations of as little as 4%, so before the gas is vented in atmosphere, it must be diluted by more than 25x. Does this reactor also have a bottle of argon for such dilution? To discharge over time the whole H2 bottle, they would need 2L x 200bar x 25 = 1 liters of argon. Some have speculated that deuterium is being formed (transmuted) in the Ni-H reaction and it has also been noted that a small percentage of deuterium is poison to the reaction. If deuterium is being formed, then it will be necessary to periodically discharge the gas and recharge to prevent the reaction from being poisoned (probably not permanently poisoned). Defkalion appears to have enough H2 to do this discharge/recharge operation many times over a 6 month recharge cycle (and their large H2 bottle may be evidence that they have found this to be the case), but it is not clear where the argon will come from for diluting that much discharged hydrogen. Any thoughts? Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing
I am very well aware of the difference. I don't know why you are saying this. 2012/1/30 Jones Beene > Apparently Daniel, you are not clear on the difference between power and > energy? > > From: Daniel Rocha > > In the brochures, they state 10sKWs, not as spikes. For a so short > deadline, > they must be lying and more else, don't know how to pull so much energy. > They also lied about knowing what is Rossi's method/catalyst. > > If they are so much behind expectations, why would they say 10KW or more > for > each Hyperion? Are they lying? > No, in fact I would not be surprised if the spikes were not more than 10kW. > Mills' (Jansson) was showing 50 kW spikes, four or more years ago with a > similar reactor. > The problem as always, is progressing from kW to kW-hrs. > > There is no indication here that this has been accomplished or even > approached. > > J. > > > > > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing
Jones, and why do they claim > 650C amd an experiment with duration of 48/48 hours? When approximately 1 year ago I have informed Randy Mills about the Rossi experiment and just told about the possibility Rossi obtains some excess heat he got very angry. By the way Randy has not demonstrated anything industrial (CIHT?) till now, my sad feeling is that his basic problem- to convert a batch process in a continuous long duration one i extremely difficult, if not insoluble. But I sincerely want him the best Peter On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Daniel Rocha > > ** ** > > If they are so much behind expectations, why would they say 10KW or more > for each Hyperion? Are they lying? > > ** ** > > No, in fact I would not be surprised if the spikes were not more than > 10kW. > > ** ** > > Mills’ (Jansson) was showing 50 kW spikes, four or more years ago with a > similar reactor. > > ** ** > > The problem as always, is progressing from kW to kW-hrs. > > ** ** > > There is no indication here that this has been accomplished or even > approached. > > ** ** > > J. > > ** ** > > ** ** > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing
In the brochures, they state 10sKWs, not as spikes. For a so short deadline, they must be lying and more else, don't know how to pull so much energy. They also lied about knowing what is Rossi's method/catalyst. 2012/1/30 Jones Beene > *From:* Daniel Rocha > > ** ** > > If they are so much behind expectations, why would they say 10KW or more > for each Hyperion? Are they lying? > > ** ** > > No, in fact I would not be surprised if the spikes were not more than > 10kW. > > ** ** > > Mills’ (Jansson) was showing 50 kW spikes, four or more years ago with a > similar reactor. > > ** ** > > The problem as always, is progressing from kW to kW-hrs. > > ** ** > > There is no indication here that this has been accomplished or even > approached. > > ** ** > > J. > > ** ** > > ** ** > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing
From: Daniel Rocha If they are so much behind expectations, why would they say 10KW or more for each Hyperion? Are they lying? No, in fact I would not be surprised if the spikes were not more than 10kW. Mills' (Jansson) was showing 50 kW spikes, four or more years ago with a similar reactor. The problem as always, is progressing from kW to kW-hrs. There is no indication here that this has been accomplished or even approached. J.
Re: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing
If they are so much behind expectations, why would they say 10KW or more for each Hyperion? Are they lying? 2012/1/30 Jones Beene > Do not fool yourself – the lab is adequate. What on earth were you > expecting to see- something from CERN funded by the taxpayer ? > > ** ** > > What is curious is the chart on the laptop. Blow it up. Of course, we do > not know what it purports to show, but the two spikes are indicative of > what have been known to appear in many early H2 fractional hydrogen > experiments in the past. > > ** ** > > One possibility is based loosely on the Mills/Jansson video. First, there > is application of heat (note that the Hyperion has no external heater, and > the location of an internal heater is not clear). Then there is ignition > and a strong spike. This is exactly what happens in the Mills’ “solid > state” reactor, which is more sophisticated than this, but similar in > appearance. Following the spike, there is a massive drop off in > temperature, followed by a continuing slide. Next, there is another spike – > indicative of either a second burst of H2 being added or some other > stimulant (RF?). > > ** ** > > This happened back in November. It indicates that DGT is months behind > where everyone assumed they were at this time, and 4-5 years behind Randell > Mills in similar testing. > > ** ** > > Jones > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
