Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-10 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
Jed,

You are tough and rightly so.
Now Einstein had his peculiarities in his personal live and possibly other 
aspects.
Being a womanizer and such, which I personally do not quite find very amusing, 
whatever.

But this is not what it is all about.
It is about the peers and the attitude towards them.
Eg Newton was a bloody bigot, speculating in the stock market and such while 
reading the bible every day.
Maybe at his time this all nicely fitted together in a latter day realization 
of protestant ethics, which he should have found, that this is is a silly 
imagination. Seems to be more difficult than postulating the law of gravity, 
right?


So maybe I have to retreat to an abstract ideal of a honest person-- the 
hypothetical 'Jesus' of an agnostic I am, as a norm of decent behavior.

The 'ideal' You refer to, which I tried to deconstruct, is some protestant 
ethic person as a posterboy for capitalism, which as such does not exist either.

So let us agree that we are en par wrt that.

(Btw, complaints mount, that this is something offtopic. I beg to differ. This 
belongs to the large scheme of things.)

What You seem to see as an excuse, concerning Rossi --that he is human, all-to 
human-- for me is a suspicion.
maybe unjustified, maybe not.
If it were so easy.

Guenter






 Von: Jed Rothwell 
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 21:59 Dienstag, 10.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 

Guenter Wildgruber  wrote:
 
b) the ones being humble enough to recognize that they stand on the shoulders 
of giants, as maybe Einstein did.
>
>
>Can you imagine Einstein aspiring being a billionaire?

But to describe Einstein, of all people, as being humble or selfless is 
ridiculous.

He was a nice fellow by all accounts, except...

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-10 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
Harry,
I mostly agree,
The general topic is 'power structure research'.
Fascinating.

Domhoff et al in the US, Krysmansky in Germany.

The possible breakup of this structure fascinates a lot of people, including 
myself.
Could we heal the environment, before the Utopians and Greedy use LENR as a 
tool to leave the solar system, because they destroyed everything livable over 
here?

I am very much down to earth, wrt that. Heal the base first.


Guenter




 Von: Harry Veeder 
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 3:59 Dienstag, 10.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 
Since the subject of economics has come I recommend this lecture by
Guy Standing.

The Precariat: The new dangerous class

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jJt-5i_dls
Labour economist Professor Guy Standing identifies one of the alarming
impacts of globalisation on the labour market; the rise of a new class
of insecure workers - the precariat. He calls for governments
world-wide to address the inequalities this new class suffer from, as
we can't sustain what is happening without major threats along the
way.

He is an economist and has studied the effect of trade liberalisation
on labour over the last 30 years and
advocates a basic income for everyone. He uses the marxian concepts of
a class for itself and a class in the making,
and identifies the precariat as a class in the making.

He answers five questions that structure his book: 1) What is the
precariat? 2) Why care about it? 3) Why is it growing? 4) Who is in
the precariat? 5) and where is it taking us as society?

He breaks society down into 5 classes.
at the top are the super rich

1. elite (super rich).
2. salariat
3. working class
4. precariat
5. underclass

Harry

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-10 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
Jojo, by this you imply that the US-Navy is somehow the keeper of wisdom and 
knowledge.

As a European I sometimes encounter this US-centric-idea, that some 
US-institution has superior knowledge.
Those insaide institutions are mostly stupid buerocrats, which gives the state 
a bad name,  with some clever people inside, to whom normally nobody listens, 
because institutionalized 'stupidity' trumps insight.
This must be worse than average in a command-hierarchy. Compare this to NASA, 
where there is no such hierarchy, but nevertheless they make errors galore.

Implicitly You suggest that a command-structure is superior to a more flat one.
If this should be the case, the Peter-principle would not apply.

See:
...
The Peter Principle is a belief that in an organization where 
promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that 
organization's members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of 
ability. The principle is commonly phrased, "employees tend to rise to 
their level of incompetence." In more formal parlance, the effect could 
be stated as: employees tend to be given more authority until they cannot 
continue to work competently.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

There is an interesting podcast by George Kenney, btw, concerning UFO's and 
what thay are all about, from the position of an US-ARMY insider.


http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2012/05/ufos_what_are_they.html


Guenter




 Von: Jojo Jaro 
An: Vortex  
Gesendet: 2:11 Dienstag, 10.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 

No, Rossi did not discover his LENR2 mechanism from 
the Chinese.  He got help from our own US Navy "skunkworks". 
 
Jojo

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-10 Thread Jed Rothwell
Guenter Wildgruber  wrote:

>
> b) the ones being humble enough to recognize that they stand on the
> shoulders of giants, as maybe Einstein did.
>
> Can you imagine Einstein aspiring being a billionaire?
>

Einstein was an ambitious young man, looking for "main chance" in physics.
He was not even a little bit humble, although it was the style back then to
talk as if you were. He drove a hard bargain in 1911, when he negotiated a
professorship in Berlin. He got ". . . a ridiculous offer, far and away the
best deal any European thinker could hope for." This included "Academy
membership, directorship of the new physics institute, a generous salary
and professorship without teaching responsibilities." (Levenson, "Einstein
in Berlin.")

He was no ivory tower academic. He understood political power and how to
cut deals to his own advantage. He also understood his own considerable
charisma and sex appeal. He had the kind of face and manners that "set
women's hearts pitter-pattering" in 1900. (I don't recall the source of
that delicious quote.) In the 1920s and 30s he was "a good catch" having
numerous affairs with famous women. He enjoyed wealth and power. He was
also cruel to his first wife and children.

Those biographical details have no bearing on his accomplishments, and are
of no importance. But to describe Einstein, of all people, as being humble
or selfless is ridiculous.

He was a nice fellow by all accounts, except to his own immediate family.
He got along well with his second wife, his cousin, because she treated him
as Herr Doctor Professor, bringing him a sweater and never asking him to
deal with tedious affairs of daily life. More like a servant than a wife,
by modern American standards.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-10 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
Eric,
Agree.

There seem to be two types of people:
a) the ones to want to be compensated by money, and translate this to power
b) the ones being humble enough to recognize that they stand on the shoulders 
of giants, as maybe Einstein did.

Can you imagine Einstein aspiring being a billionaire?
I do'nt.

Great minds should convince by their ideas, not mediated by money, which is 
just a vehicle of exerting power anonymously.
Right now we should all see how destructive all sorts of money-mediated power 
is. 

Rossi a trillionaire?
All hevaens beware!


Guenter




 Von: Eric Walker 
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 0:38 Dienstag, 10.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 
>My own personal issue (and you may not be addressing comments that I have made 
>in the past) lies not in rewarding innovation.  It lies in overcompensation 
>and the setting up of a system of extracting rents. 
...

>I am not against hardworking, innovative (and sometimes paranoid) people being 
>rewarded handsomely for their efforts.  I'm against trillions going to some 
>while others who can barely afford a meal must pay more for electricity as a 
>result of patent enforcement, even if the license fees are amortized over a 
>large population.

Eric

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-10 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
Jed, I beg to disagree.

ad (1) 'legitimate earning of money' happens, but is more rare than common, and 
more often happens under a pretext of chance than ability.

ad (2) Maybe, at times. But it rarely does. Philantropists are more often wrong 
than right when directing of their surplus money.
My judgement of people like Branson, Ellison or Allen or Gates or Buffett on 
which way to go is not very favourable.


ad (3) Money is a measure of exploitation more often than not. See the 
slave-ownership--bubble, which forced the US-North to fight this 
money/property-'bubble'. This factoid enlightened me re what was going on in 
the US in the mid-19th century. I was very astonished, when I learned about 
that.


ad (4) Freedom for whom?


I value You, because of your deep dedication to an important cause.
Wrt that you are a very atypical person, with a deep sense of importance and a 
dedication to your case.

(I do not do this easily, because judging a person always implies that I 
somehow have the competence to do so, which I do not have by some inborn 
faculty of being superior. But I judge the likes of eg (2) nevertheless, 
because they collide with my worldview and my logic, which I cultivated over 
the years.) 

Anyway. 

Let us keep this debate out of the equation.
It is enough when I occasionally speculate on Rossi -vs- Karl May, and we 
disagree.
It is always -sort of- a pleasure (for me) to have some headwind from a sharp 
mind.

All the best.
Guenter



 Von: Jed Rothwell 
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 0:03 Dienstag, 10.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 

Guenter Wildgruber wrote:


Decent, humble scientifically oriented minds consider that, and are not 
distracted by possible billions.
That is an absurd thing to say. 

1. Money and wealth earned by legitimate ...

2. Money promotes science, technology and exploration.

3. Money is a measure of social benefit, albeit a crude one. 

4. Money is a measure of freedom. 
- Jed

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-09 Thread Harry Veeder
I wrote about Guy Standing's class analysis:

> He breaks society down into 5 classes.
> at the top are the super rich
>
> 1. elite (super rich).
> 2. salariat
> 3. working class
> 4. precariat
> 5. underclass

It is actually 6 classes. I forgot the "proficians".

1. elite
2. salariat
3. proficians
4. working class
5. precariat
6. underclass

This clip discusses these classes in more detail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYoaV6f78wM

Harry



Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-09 Thread Harry Veeder
Since the subject of economics has come I recommend this lecture by
Guy Standing.

The Precariat: The new dangerous class

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jJt-5i_dls
Labour economist Professor Guy Standing identifies one of the alarming
impacts of globalisation on the labour market; the rise of a new class
of insecure workers - the precariat. He calls for governments
world-wide to address the inequalities this new class suffer from, as
we can't sustain what is happening without major threats along the
way.

He is an economist and has studied the effect of trade liberalisation
on labour over the last 30 years and
advocates a basic income for everyone. He uses the marxian concepts of
a class for itself and a class in the making,
and identifies the precariat as a class in the making.

He answers five questions that structure his book: 1) What is the
precariat? 2) Why care about it? 3) Why is it growing? 4) Who is in
the precariat? 5) and where is it taking us as society?

He breaks society down into 5 classes.
at the top are the super rich

1. elite (super rich).
2. salariat
3. working class
4. precariat
5. underclass

Harry

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Guenter Wildgruber wrote:
>
> Decent, humble scientifically oriented minds consider that, and are not
> distracted by possible billions.
>
>
> That is an absurd thing to say. People should be "distracted" by the
> likelihood that cold fusion is worth billions of dollars. I consider it
> grossly irresponsible to pretend it is not worth huge sums of money. I also
> dislike this Mandarin attitude toward money as being "filthy lucre" that
> should now sway a pure-minded academic scientist.
>
> I have heard this attitude from time to time, that there is something
> unseemly or morally wrong with making money. I strongly disagree, for the
> following reasons:
>
> 1. Money and wealth earned by legitimate means, without causing much harm or
> pollution, are socially beneficial.
>
> 2. Money promotes science, technology and exploration. One of the NASA
> people at W&M had a slide with a great quote about this: "If God had wanted
> people to go to space, she would have given them more money" -- Mark Albert.
>
> 3. Money is a measure of social benefit, albeit a crude one. An invention
> that makes millions of dollars and causes no harm is good for humanity. An
> invention that makes billions of dollars and also causes no harm is even
> better for humanity. Cold fusion will earn trillions and save countless
> trillions more that would have been spent on fossil fuel.
>
> 4. Money is a measure of freedom. It allows people to live however they
> please. Someday in the future (and perhaps not in the distant future) robots
> will do all physical work. If we are smart enough to make an economy worthy
> of our technological genius, then every person on earth will be fabulously
> wealthy by present day standards. Every person will be free to do anything
> he or she pleases, every day of her life, the way a multimillionaire is
> today, or the way Thomas Jefferson was. This should be the birthright of any
> person born on the Earth or anywhere else in the solar system. Every baby
> should be welcomed with all food, water, education, Internet access and
> transportation he or she wants, for a lifetime, just for showing up. Go
> anywhere, live anywhere, do whatever you please. In such a society, some
> people may feel ennui or dissatisfaction, but that is the best and most
> fulfilling future we can hope for. On balance I am confident that most
> people will contribute more to human happiness and creativity in those
> circumstances than they would in today's world where you have to work to
> make a living. To achieve that we must have much more technology and more
> money. Fewer material resources perhaps, but lots more computing power.
> Every person will need something like a hundred Watson-class supercomputers
> at his disposal. Every person deserves that.
>
> - Jed
>



Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-09 Thread Eric Walker
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

I am not against hardworking, innovative (and sometimes paranoid) people
> being rewarded handsomely for their efforts.  I'm against trillions going
> to some while others who can barely afford a meal must pay more for
> electricity as a result of patent enforcement, even if the license fees are
> amortized over a large population.
>

I am barely familiar with patent law, and there are no doubt a number of
mistaken assumptions in the analysis I just provided.  But to give people a
sense of the precariousness of the situation, consider that right now LENR
research right now is driven by a handful of capable people, but people who
are woefully underfunded, or amateurs, or both.

Petroleum companies, by contrast, have lots of funding, and at any point
they could decide to direct substantial resources towards figuring out
what's going on with LENR.  Suppose they do and successfully file a series
of patents in all countries but the US, and eventually the US, relating for
a number of critical steps in a fuel refinement process which, upon later
reflection, turns out to be the cheapest way to do things by far.  They
could then control the spigot, so to speak -- they would have a significant
degree of control over the rate at which LENR was adopted.  If it suited
their interests (and it surely would), they could influence things towards
a very high point for LENR's use.

The petroleum companies are not the only concern to be considered.  Even
the concentration of wealth likely to arise from a successful patent
defense would be bad.  If we in the US have been smarting over the
influence of Rupert Murdoch and the Citizens United decision, consider
the mischief that someone with 750 billion to 1.5 trillion could wreak.  I
do not know what the actual numbers would look like, but I can imagine that
the income would be on the high side as far as patent revenue streams go.

Other industries whose international development has already been warped by
patent enforcement:

   - Pharmaceuticals
   - Agriculture
   - Software

There's not the slightest reason to think that LENR would be different upon
a successful defense of a patent relating to a crucial process.

Eric


Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-09 Thread Jojo Jaro
Yes, Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR (what I call LENR2) is new, 
not-understood, unproven and certainly untested.  Absolutely - that's why it's 
the "bleeding edge" of LENR research.  And whoever has evidence for it will 
surely not share it.  You have to rediscover this on your own if you want a 
piece of it.

No one can give you an LENR2 reactor yet; but then again, no one can give you 
an LENR or LENR+ reactor as well.

But, evidence for LENR2 mechanism is accumulating.  In Carbon Nanosturctues 
such as nanotubes and graphene, many have discovered critical properties to 
LENR reactions such as superconductivity at high temperatures, ballistic 
conduction and charge accumulation.  One needs to recognize that these are the 
properties that are likely the properties that are necessary for a NAE.  

No, Rossi did not discover his LENR2 mechanism from the Chinese.  He got help 
from our own US Navy "skunkworks".

Jojo
  - Original Message - 
  From: Guenter Wildgruber 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 4:42 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations


  Jojo,
  maybe I missed that.


  but in my humble opinion carbon-nanostructures are hypothetical conceptual 
vehicles, which nobody in the field ever investigated.
  I don not want to say that such structures could not exist, but I do not see 
any evidence in the literature known to me.


  This would be a deep research-issue, I suspect, to bring it into reality, and 
is an OPEN TOPIC.


  Question: do You think that Rossi solved that, with a little help of some 
Chinese wizards, who promise everything and deliver something of questionable 
value, if you only pay., eg Android 4.0 devices for $80.
  Pay a Chinese (sorry folks) 1million to detect the Higgs Boson, they 
faithfully deliver it via UPS, tax-free in four weeks.

  Excuse my sarcasm.


  Guenter








--
  Von: Jojo Jaro 
  An: Vortex  
  Gesendet: 6:41 Montag, 9.Juli 2012
  Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations



  Guenter, once again I believe you missed the point.  I thought I did a good 
job in explaining in the last post, but apparently I did not.  So let me try 
again.

  You only have the 400C recrystallization issue or the Curie Point issue or 
any other temp-limiting issue if your NAE is Nickel Lattice or some other 
transistion metal (with the exception of possibly Tungsten).  If your NAE is 
cracks, or patches, or unusual geometry on the Nickel lattice, then you have 
this temp limitation and higher temper it s will destroy these environments.

  But if your NAE is Carbon Nanostructures, you do not have an NAE that is 
easily destroyed by temperatures.  Carbon Nanostructures like nanotubes and 
graphene can easily resist higher temperatures without its structure being 
destroyed.  You can host higher temps on Carbon Nanostructures NAE.  Carbon 
Nanostructures have demonstrated higher temperature resistance.


  Jojo

  - Original Message - 
  From: Guenter Wildgruber 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:19 AM
      Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations


  Jojo,


  Maybe, maybe not.
  Count me in the doubter's camp.
  As I tried to explain: 400++ degC is a domain where recrystallization 
occurs. this is not your comfortable home-temperature.

  See 'the laws of recrystallization', subtopic  -- Laws of 
recrystallization --

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy)


  It is ONE thing to question ONE law, but a different thing to question 
quite a bunch of them simultaneously,.


  As an engineer with some philosophical leanings (quite rare) I tell You 
that I am not quite ready to put Rossi into the alltime hall of fame of the  
likes of Plato, Aristoteles or Einstein.
  My guess is, that he is more like a Karl May character, who pretended to 
have visited distant lands, without ever experiencing them, or messing things 
up, doing a disservice to us all.



  Sorry.
  Guenter








--
  Von: Jojo Jaro 
  An: Vortex  
  Gesendet: 17:31 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012
  Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations



  Yes, 600c seems like an overstretch only because we do not understand 
what's going on.  Just like how Huzienga and Parks would think of Cold Fusion.  
They don't understand it, so it is an overstretch.

  However, Axil seems to have done a good job in stitching together a 
probable explanation that can easily explain this 600C.  This result is 
entirely probable in the context of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR.  Carbon 
Nanostructure-based LENR can be more consistent and controllable so I do not 
see a problem with 600C, or even 1000C reaction temps.

  Many seems to have recognized the possibility of 

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-09 Thread Eric Walker
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

 If we are smart enough to make an economy worthy of our technological
> genius, then every person on earth will be fabulously wealthy by present
> day standards. Every person will be free to do anything he or she pleases,
> every day of her life, the way a multimillionaire is today, or the way
> Thomas Jefferson was. This should be the birthright of any person born on
> the Earth or anywhere else in the solar system. Every baby should be
> welcomed with all food, water, education, Internet access and
> transportation he or she wants, for a lifetime, just for showing up.
>

I agree very strongly with this description.  My own personal issue (and
you may not be addressing comments that I have made in the past) lies not
in rewarding innovation.  It lies in overcompensation and the setting up of
a system of extracting rents.  An outcome I see very likely is this:  one
or more patents will stick and be enforced at some point, and manufacturers
in poor countries will find it harder to build on top of LENR technology
without paying the license fees, either raising the cost of their products
for people who can ill afford to pay the additional price or denying an
international market for their products.  You see a similar dynamic with
genetically modified seed.  Such an arrangement, if allowed to form with
LENR, would be a tragedy in my opinion.  For this reason I will not lose a
second of sleep if any and all patents relating to the fundamental LENR
processes can be systematically undermined; indeed, it is a cherished hope
of mine that this can be brought about.  I see the USPTO's refusal to
consider LENR patents as a windfall.

I am not against hardworking, innovative (and sometimes paranoid) people
being rewarded handsomely for their efforts.  I'm against trillions going
to some while others who can barely afford a meal must pay more for
electricity as a result of patent enforcement, even if the license fees are
amortized over a large population.

Eric


Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-09 Thread Jed Rothwell

Guenter Wildgruber wrote:

Decent, humble scientifically oriented minds consider that, and are 
not distracted by possible billions.


That is an absurd thing to say. People should be "distracted" by the 
likelihood that cold fusion is worth billions of dollars. I consider it 
_grossly irresponsible_ to pretend it is not worth huge sums of money. I 
also dislike this Mandarin attitude toward money as being "filthy lucre" 
that should now sway a pure-minded academic scientist.


I have heard this attitude from time to time, that there is something 
unseemly or morally wrong with making money. I strongly disagree, for 
the following reasons:


1. Money and wealth earned by legitimate means, without causing much 
harm or pollution, are socially beneficial.


2. Money promotes science, technology and exploration. One of the NASA 
people at W&M had a slide with a great quote about this: "If God had 
wanted people to go to space, she would have given them more money" -- 
Mark Albert.


3. Money is a measure of social benefit, albeit a crude one. An 
invention that makes millions of dollars and causes no harm is good for 
humanity. An invention that makes billions of dollars and also causes no 
harm is even better for humanity. Cold fusion will earn trillions and 
save countless trillions more that would have been spent on fossil fuel.


4. Money is a measure of freedom. It allows people to live however they 
please. Someday in the future (and perhaps not in the distant future) 
robots will do all physical work. If we are smart enough to make an 
economy worthy of our technological genius, then every person on earth 
will be fabulously wealthy by present day standards. Every person will 
be free to do anything he or she pleases, every day of her life, the way 
a multimillionaire is today, or the way Thomas Jefferson was. This 
should be the birthright of any person born on the Earth or anywhere 
else in the solar system. Every baby should be welcomed with all food, 
water, education, Internet access and transportation he or she wants, 
for a lifetime, just for showing up. Go anywhere, live anywhere, do 
whatever you please. In such a society, some people may feel ennui or 
dissatisfaction, but that is the best and most fulfilling future we can 
hope for. On balance I am confident that most people will contribute 
more to human happiness and creativity in those circumstances than they 
would in today's world where you have to work to make a living. To 
achieve that we must have much more technology and more money. Fewer 
material resources perhaps, but lots more computing power. Every person 
will need something like a hundred Watson-class supercomputers at his 
disposal. Every person deserves that.


- Jed



Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-09 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
Jojo,
maybe I missed that.

but in my humble opinion carbon-nanostructures are hypothetical conceptual 
vehicles, which nobody in the field ever investigated.
I don not want to say that such structures could not exist, but I do not see 
any evidence in the literature known to me.

This would be a deep research-issue, I suspect, to bring it into reality, and 
is an OPEN TOPIC.

Question: do You think that Rossi solved that, with a little help of some 
Chinese wizards, who promise everything and deliver something of questionable 
value, if you only pay., eg Android 4.0 devices for $80.
Pay a Chinese (sorry folks) 1million to detect the Higgs Boson, they faithfully 
deliver it via UPS, tax-free in four weeks.

Excuse my sarcasm.

Guenter







 Von: Jojo Jaro 
An: Vortex  
Gesendet: 6:41 Montag, 9.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 

Guenter, once again I believe you missed the 
point.  I thought I did a good job in explaining in the last post, but 
apparently I did not.  So let me try again.
 
You only have the 400C recrystallization issue or 
the Curie Point issue or any other temp-limiting issue if your NAE is Nickel 
Lattice or some other transistion metal (with the exception of possibly 
Tungsten).  If your NAE is cracks, or patches, or unusual geometry on the 
Nickel lattice, then you have this temp limitation and higher temper it s will 
destroy 
these environments.
 
But if your NAE is Carbon Nanostructures, you do 
not have an NAE that is easily destroyed by temperatures.  Carbon 
Nanostructures like nanotubes and graphene can easily resist higher 
temperatures 
without its structure being destroyed.  You can host higher temps on Carbon 
Nanostructures NAE.  Carbon Nanostructures have demonstrated higher 
temperature resistance.
 
 
Jojo
 
- Original Message - 
>>From: Guenter  Wildgruber 
>>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
>>Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:19  AM
>>Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C  Operations
>>
>>
>>Jojo,
>>
>>
>>Maybe, maybe not.
>>Count me in the doubter's camp.
>>As I tried to explain: 400++ degC is a domain where  recrystallization 
>>occurs. this is not your comfortable  home-temperature.
>>
>>See 'the laws of recrystallization', subtopic  -- Laws of  recrystallization 
>>--
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy)
>>
>>
>>It is ONE thing to question ONE law, but a different thing to  question quite 
>>a bunch of them simultaneously,.
>>
>>
>>As an engineer with some philosophical leanings (quite rare) I  tell You that 
>>I am not quite ready to put Rossi into the alltime hall of  fame of the  
>>likes of Plato, Aristoteles or Einstein.
>>My guess is, that he is more like a Karl May character, who pretended  to 
>>have visited distant lands, without ever experiencing them, or messing  
>>things up, doing a disservice to us all.
>>
>>
>>
>>Sorry.
>>Guenter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Von: Jojo Jaro  
>>An: Vortex  
>>Gesendet: 17:31 Sonntag,  8.Juli 2012
>>Betreff: Re:  [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
>>
>>
>> 
>>Yes, 600c seems like an overstretch only  because we do not understand what's 
>>going on.  Just like how Huzienga  and Parks would think of Cold Fusion.  
>>They don't understand it, so it  is an overstretch.
>> 
>>However, Axil seems to have done a good job in  stitching together a probable 
>>explanation that can easily explain this  600C.  This result is entirely 
>>probable in the context of Carbon  Nanostructure-based LENR.  Carbon 
>>Nanostructure-based LENR can be more  consistent and controllable so I do not 
>>see a problem with 600C, or even  1000C reaction temps.
>> 
>>Many seems to have recognized the  possibility of Carbon Nanostructure-based 
>>LENR paradigm, most  notable of which may include both Ed Storms and W&L.
>> 
>>I have speculated repeatedly in the past that  one of the reason why Rossi 
>>changed to a flat design was due to the need to  deliver more consistent 
>>Sparking/arc discharge.  Now, evidence is  mounting that such an environment 
>>is consistent with Carbon  Nanosturcture-based LENR, as these Carbon 
>>Nanostructures are easily created  in such an electric discharge 
>>environment.   In fact, I would  go one step further and speculate that I 
>>believe Rossi's new flat  design may be a hybrid Arc Discharge/CVD reactor 
>>that creates abundant  Carbon Nanostructures that appear to be critical to 
>>increased power  density.   
>> 
>>We know that Carbon Nanotub

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-09 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
Eric,

thanks for the reference,
That is exactly the point.
As far as I can remember there are similar reports from eg Piantelli and others.
What is missing is the conclusions in a wider context.


Which actually should be intuitively plausible:

If a LENR-reaction starts, it produces A LOT of energy at a certain spot.
My back-of the napkin estimates go in the order of magnitude of from 1000 to 
10k base-material-atoms involved.
Remember: 1k Ni-Atoms are a cube of approx 5nm^3.

This zone heats up in a sub-microsecond-scale, and most probably melts or even 
explodes, ie releases local energy via a gaseous phase, the rest simply melting 
and possibly/probably losing its capability to start up another reaction, 
because it is structurally 'kaput'.

Most of the evidence for LENR comes from quite low-key energy release, which 
must have a reason.
My guess is, that these low-key reactions as maybe the MIT experiments do NOT 
cause melting or even explosions.

We have a problem here: such low-key reactions are commercially uninteresting.
So there is a need to prop up this meager evidence, and make a midge -at least 
in its current state-  appear like an elephant.

Decent, humble scientifically oriented minds consider that, and are not 
distracted by possible billions.
So I listen more to the humble side , and not subjects or entities driven by an 
illusion of grandeur and big profit.


It is enough that we have those artists in the financial business. No need to 
have them in the scientific/technological sector also.

Guenter



 Von: Eric Walker 
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 5:32 Montag, 9.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 

I wrote:



I would be surprised if the answer to the second question [Is it possible under 
any circumstance for an NiH system to operate at or above 600 C?] were 
unequivocally negative; it is possible to think up scenarios in which the 
nuclear active environment rarely reaches the melting point of nickel, even 
with a low-grade reaction proceeding.

I just happened upon a writeup by Stan Szpak, from SPAWAR, and others, 
concerning the PdD co-deposition process he pioneered, in which palladium is 
electroplated on a gold or copper or similar base.  The SPAWAR video I have 
referred to elsewhere, which shows a number of bright hot spots rapidly 
appearing and disappearing against a red and blue background, is of one of 
these assemblies.  What the authors have to say about it sounds similar to what 
Guenter guessed might be going on, where a small region destructively melts, 
or, in their words, explodes:

The ‘hot spots’ observed in the infrared imaging experiments are suggestive of 
‘miniexplosions’ (Figure 1b). To verify this, the Ag electrode on a 
piezoelectric transducer was used as the substrate for the Pd/D co-deposition. 
If a mini-explosion occurred, the resulting shock wave would compress the 
crystal. The shock wave would be followed by a heat pulse that would cause the 
crystal to expand. In these experiments, sharp downward spikes followed by 
broader upward spikes were observed in the piezoelectric crystal response. The 
downward spikes were indicative of crystal compression while the broader upward 
spikes are attributed to the heat pulse and the consequent crystal expansion 
following the explosion.
>http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSlenrresear.pdf

So there may be no reason to try to think up a nuclear active environment that 
is long-lived; it is possible that the NAE (if things can be generalized, here) 
typically explodes and goes away, with the reaction continuing on elsewhere in 
the substrate.

Eric

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Jojo Jaro
Guenter, once again I believe you missed the point.  I thought I did a good job 
in explaining in the last post, but apparently I did not.  So let me try again.

You only have the 400C recrystallization issue or the Curie Point issue or any 
other temp-limiting issue if your NAE is Nickel Lattice or some other 
transistion metal (with the exception of possibly Tungsten).  If your NAE is 
cracks, or patches, or unusual geometry on the Nickel lattice, then you have 
this temp limitation and higher temps will destroy these environments.

But if your NAE is Carbon Nanostructures, you do not have an NAE that is easily 
destroyed by temperatures.  Carbon Nanostructures like nanotubes and graphene 
can easily resist higher temperatures without its structure being destroyed.  
You can host higher temps on Carbon Nanostructures NAE.  Carbon Nanostructures 
have demonstrated higher temperature resistance.


Jojo

- Original Message - 
From: Guenter Wildgruber 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations


Jojo,


Maybe, maybe not.
Count me in the doubter's camp.
As I tried to explain: 400++ degC is a domain where recrystallization 
occurs. this is not your comfortable home-temperature.

See 'the laws of recrystallization', subtopic  -- Laws of recrystallization 
--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy)


It is ONE thing to question ONE law, but a different thing to question 
quite a bunch of them simultaneously,.


As an engineer with some philosophical leanings (quite rare) I tell You 
that I am not quite ready to put Rossi into the alltime hall of fame of the  
likes of Plato, Aristoteles or Einstein.
My guess is, that he is more like a Karl May character, who pretended to 
have visited distant lands, without ever experiencing them, or messing things 
up, doing a disservice to us all.



Sorry.
Guenter









Von: Jojo Jaro 
An: Vortex  
Gesendet: 17:31 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012
    Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations



Yes, 600c seems like an overstretch only because we do not understand 
what's going on.  Just like how Huzienga and Parks would think of Cold Fusion.  
They don't understand it, so it is an overstretch.

However, Axil seems to have done a good job in stitching together a 
probable explanation that can easily explain this 600C.  This result is 
entirely probable in the context of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR.  Carbon 
Nanostructure-based LENR can be more consistent and controllable so I do not 
see a problem with 600C, or even 1000C reaction temps.

Many seems to have recognized the possibility of Carbon Nanostructure-based 
LENR paradigm, most notable of which may include both Ed Storms and W&L.

I have speculated repeatedly in the past that one of the reason why Rossi 
changed to a flat design was due to the need to deliver more consistent 
Sparking/arc discharge.  Now, evidence is mounting that such an environment is 
consistent with Carbon Nanosturcture-based LENR, as these Carbon Nanostructures 
are easily created in such an electric discharge environment.   In fact, I 
would go one step further and speculate that I believe Rossi's new flat design 
may be a hybrid Arc Discharge/CVD reactor that creates abundant Carbon 
Nanostructures that appear to be critical to increased power density.   

We know that Carbon Nanotubes are good NAE candidates.  In Lou's post of 
W&L slides, W&L presents compelling evidence of the possibility of Graphene as 
a possible NAE.  Both of these Nanosturcutures appear to be good platforms for 
the Nuclear Active Environment.  If one recognizes the possibility of these 
Carbon Nanostructures as the NAE, one will not have too much problems believing 
the Rossi 600C stable operating temps.

Jojo


  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Guenter Wildgruber 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 10:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations




  Rossi, the sparrow does a good job of concealing his hand, in poker 
speech.
  And endlessly promises. Bids up his hand to 600degC, knowing that 
1000degC would give him a good laugh, even from the most friendly of his 
friends.


  What I tried to do, is argue, that 600degC is already an overstretch of 
the poker-hand from both sides: Rossi AND DGT.
  Maybe I am wrong. 

  Actually I hope so, because the planet would be safe for another couple 
of hundred years, and could heal from human folly.


  Guenter








  Guenter




--
  Von: Jojo Jaro 
  An: Vortex  
  Gesendet: 15:25 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012
  Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Eric Walker
I wrote:

I would be surprised if the answer to the second question [Is it possible
> under any circumstance for an NiH system to operate at or above 600 C?] were
> unequivocally negative; it is possible to think up scenarios in which the
> nuclear active environment rarely reaches the melting point of nickel, even
> with a low-grade reaction proceeding.
>

I just happened upon a writeup by Stan Szpak, from SPAWAR, and others,
concerning the PdD co-deposition process he pioneered, in which palladium
is electroplated on a gold or copper or similar base.  The SPAWAR video I
have referred to elsewhere, which shows a number of bright hot spots
rapidly appearing and disappearing against a red and blue background, is of
one of these assemblies.  What the authors have to say about it sounds
similar to what Guenter guessed might be going on, where a small region
destructively melts, or, in their words, explodes:

The ‘hot spots’ observed in the infrared imaging experiments are suggestive
of ‘miniexplosions’ (Figure 1b). To verify this, the Ag electrode on a
piezoelectric transducer was used as the substrate for the Pd/D
co-deposition. If a mini-explosion occurred, the resulting shock wave would
compress the crystal. The shock wave would be followed by a heat pulse that
would cause the crystal to expand. In these experiments, sharp downward
spikes followed by broader upward spikes were observed in the piezoelectric
crystal response. The downward spikes were indicative of crystal
compression while the broader upward spikes are attributed to the heat
pulse and the consequent crystal expansion following the explosion.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSlenrresear.pdf


So there may be no reason to try to think up a nuclear active environment
that is long-lived; it is possible that the NAE (if things can be
generalized, here) typically explodes and goes away, with the reaction
continuing on elsewhere in the substrate.

Eric


Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Eric Walker
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Guenter Wildgruber 
 wrote:

As I tried to explain: 400++ degC is a domain where recrystallization
> occurs. this is not your comfortable home-temperature.
> See 'the laws of recrystallization', subtopic  -- Laws of
> recrystallization --
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy)
>

In this discussion I think it's important to separate three related but
distinct questions:

   - Does Andrea Rossi's new model operate at or above 600 C?
   - Is it possible under any circumstance for an NiH system to operate at
   or above 600 C?
   - Is an Ni + H reaction the main one responsible for heat in an NiH
   system?

I have no strong opinions on any of these questions.  I will be anxious to
see independent confirmation of a positive answer to the first one if such
becomes possible in the near term.

I would be surprised if the answer to the second question were
unequivocally negative; it is possible to think up scenarios in which the
nuclear active environment rarely reaches the melting point of nickel, even
with a low-grade reaction proceeding.

Eric


Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 10:13 AM 7/8/2012, Guenter Wildgruber wrote:

To repeat: I think, as a matter of fact, that LENR is real, but not 
nearly as far to commercial application as Rossi/DGT claim.


Two entirely separate issues here, though, of course, the second 
depends on the first.


LENR is real, there is practically no room for rational doubt about 
that, but those who are not familiar with the publication record may, 
of course, remain unconvinced or even sure that LENR is unreal. It's 
a piece of work to become familiar.


Those who think that a peer-reviewed review in a major journal might 
be a clue could read "Status of cold fusion (2010)," by Edmund 
Storms, Naturwissenschaften.


To head off some common objections:

1. Ed Storms is a believer. As if someone professionaly competent 
would become a world-class expert on a topic, doing real research 
with it, while not accepting the reality of the topic. What is 
significant about this review is not the author, who already wrote a 
monograph on the topic, published by World Scientific in 2007 ("The 
Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions"), but the publisher, 
Springer-Verlag, which is one of the two largest scientific 
publishers in the world.


2. Naturwissenschaften is a life sciences journal. This is based on 
two facts: NW is Springer-Verlag's "flagship multidisciplinary 
journal" (their description). SV has organized its vast array of 
journals into administrative units. It doesn't have a pile of 
"multidisciplinary journals," and, perhaps because NW does publish a 
lot of articles related to the life sciences (most of them are in 
some way), the Life Sciences division makes sense. However, the "life 
sciences journal" issue is raised to imply that NW would not have 
access to physics-competent peer review. That is completely false.


3. This paper has not been cited in other peer-reviewed papers. 
That's true. *It is not controversial,* the conclusions are 
well-established, and for many years now, other papers on cold 
fusion, some published in peer-reviewed journals, simply assume what 
is clearly stated in this review, that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat 
Effect is due to some process that fuses deuterium to helium, 
mechanism unknown. The paper does not make controversial claims. The 
summary in the abstract hasn't seen contradiction in the 
peer-reviewed literature for many years.


4. The paper (allegedly) still shows that most experiments to confirm 
the FPHE came up empty. Well, no, but there is a chart that can be 
interpreted that way. It's also quite possible that the "most 
experiments" claim is true, because many negative results have not 
been published. However, claiming that this is negative as to the 
reality of cold fusion would be like claiming that there are no fish 
in a lake, because most fishers who try to catch one fail. The 
experimental evidence, from early on, showed clearly that the FPHE 
was difficult to reproduce, that it depended on poorly understood 
conditions and, while recent research tends to be more reliable, it 
is still true that the effect is "unreliable." I.e. that the 
conditions are poorly controlled, generally depending on catalyst 
nanostructure, and, given that the mechanism is not understood, 
still, improving design is hit-or-miss.


(We know, however, that the effect is real because the ash has been 
identified (helium) and it has been shown to be highly correlated 
with the reported anomalous heat. That would not happen with 
non-existent heat, a result of error in calorimetry, nor would it 
happen with leaked helium, the usual objections.)


In 1989 and 2004, U.S. Department of Energy panels recommended 
further research. Those reviews have often been presented as if they 
concluded there was no effect. That's not so. In 1989, it's true, the 
large majority of the panel might have been prepapred to make such a 
statement, but they did not, due to the influence -- and threat to 
resign -- of a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who was co-chair. In 
2004, it's apparent, the recommendation for continued research to 
resolve basic questions was a genuine consensus, the summarizing 
bureaucrat says it was unanimous. In spite of continued "popular 
opinion" among physicists, particularly, that "cold fusion" was 
"impossible," evidenced in some of the individual reviewer reports, 
the panel was evenly split on the reality of the heat effect, and 
one-third considered evidence for the nuclear origin of the heat to 
be at least "somewhat convincing."


A careful reading of the DoE review paper, and the review, shows that 
some of the panel and the bureaucrat misread the paper and especially 
the evidence for helium as the ash (which Storms covers well in his 
2010 Review). What is, objectively, very strong evidence for 
heat/helium correlation, was misstated by a reviewer and the 
bureaucrat as if it were an anti-correlation. Simple error. Made easy 
by the speed of the review, there was a one-day meeting, with very 
little

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
Alain, 

You again make a categorical error :

...DGT gave strong signal...

I do not care about 'signals' unchecked.
Only if they are verified by MY or other trustable person's experience, and 
cross-checked again by my humble common sense.

As Korzybski said: "The map is not the territory" 

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski --

What DGT actually did ,as Rossi repeatedly does, is, that their stated 'map' is 
somehow correlated to the territory of reality.
You can pretend as long as you will, as long as you have a sufficient number of 
followers to satisfy your ambitions.
Any storyteller satisfies that sort of belief. Even Uri Geller. Embarrasment 
impersonated.
Geller proves one thing: how easy it is to get people to believe fairytales 
like eg  the bible.


And No: I am NOT maryjugo or whatever this person is calling itself. I am who I 
am.
And:Yes,  I  think LENR is real.

I am just embarrassed by extraordinary claims without sufficient backing.
Which makes me angry at times.

All the best
Guenter




 Von: Alain Sepeda 
An: Vortex List  
Gesendet: 18:54 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 

I undesrtand your reasoning, and from that point of view it is right.
the claims are claims.
but when someone own assets (reputation, investment, clients, ...) claims have 
a concrete effect that varies depending on the future, in which they have more 
data than us. Only them know if their claims are right or wrong, but their 
belief or knowledge have an effect on their strategy, even if they are 
irrational a little.

so when i hear a claim, I translate into commitment, image risk, cornering.
they can be self deluded, but , unlike you are supported by a strong group like 
is the mainstream, the delusion cannot be too far from facts.

I have received data from them, and also behavioral data, and competence 
signals.
It is easy to differential a hollywood movie bomb, from a terrorist bomb, and 
you can even guess their intent, education, culture and competence from the 
design.

DGT gave strong signal about managing details that match a real capacity to 
sell to public (safety, regulation, green/ROHS). they have made rational choice 
that mean that when choosing, they choose the standard, simple, recognized 
alternative (H2 circuit, metal, shape, shielding).
They have proposed some key design that mean that they have touched a real 
complex reactor, and found an uncommon but smart control technique.

of course , those evidences are not easy to transfer to third party (maybe you 
ca read the technical discussion, but part of the evidence is in my experience, 
yet maybe some other is in someone else and I missed it).

finally there is a good reason to lower the standard of proof, it is that 
reading Celani, Pianteli, Focardi, all of that is SIMPLE to do (for a gang of 
engineer with budget, i mean like LHC one magnet is easy to build).

the only real concern I have is that nobody else in the LENR community (for 
mainstream they are self-delusioned and won't recognize their mother with a 
LENR logo T-shirt) seems to have success in making a powerful gas reactor.
Maybe short budget, maybe just hiding and preparing for fast sales soon,

however alternative are not coherent either.

DGT might have problem on longterm usage (the buzz is possible), but their 
claims, on the horizon of few weeks, and as far as they could test, was correct 
when done. And latest behaviors show that they were anyway confident, and 
betting their balls.

The same kind of reasoning with Concezzi and NIWeek, make me hugely confident.

we should stop being afraid of our shadow. LENr is normal physic, and LENR 
energy is more rational industry than renewable.

I've noticed that behavior of oppressed minorities (like bikes on roads. see 
http://www.johnforester.com ), that integrate the beliefs of the mainstream, 
despite the facts that everyday prove the opposite, and even for those who 
oppose strongly the mainstream. It is very hard not to absorb the mainstream 
values (I think it is the subject of some cognitive science sector, on which 
I've read some article), even if you know it is wrong.

I see everyday very various pathological science, there are some in LENR who 
look pathologic, but mainstream is crowded with such too. Without the support 
of groupthink, LENR is quite easily cleaned from bad science.


2012/7/8 Guenter Wildgruber 

Alain,
>You most probably make an error of judgement.
>
>
>DGT up to now delivered 'facts' which I could assemble on a sunday afternoon 
>(like today).
>Peter Gluck did a good job of briefing them, so at least they are coherent in 
>WHAT THEY SAY!
>What they DO or HAVE is an another matter altogether.
>Rossi is telling us that the sun is rising when in fact it is setting. 
>Beautiful, when he talks to his believers.
>Rossi exactly delivered

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Alain Sepeda
I undesrtand your reasoning, and from that point of view it is right.
the claims are claims.
but when someone own assets (reputation, investment, clients, ...) claims
have a concrete effect that varies depending on the future, in which they
have more data than us. Only them know if their claims are right or wrong,
but their belief or knowledge have an effect on their strategy, even if
they are irrational a little.

so when i hear a claim, I translate into commitment, image risk, cornering.
they can be self deluded, but , unlike you are supported by a strong group
like is the mainstream, the delusion cannot be too far from facts.

I have received data from them, and also behavioral data, and competence
signals.
It is easy to differential a hollywood movie bomb, from a terrorist bomb,
and you can even guess their intent, education, culture and competence from
the design.

DGT gave strong signal about managing details that match a real capacity to
sell to public (safety, regulation, green/ROHS). they have made rational
choice that mean that when choosing, they choose the standard, simple,
recognized alternative (H2 circuit, metal, shape, shielding).
They have proposed some key design that mean that they have touched a real
complex reactor, and found an uncommon but smart control technique.

of course , those evidences are not easy to transfer to third party (maybe
you ca read the technical discussion, but part of the evidence is in my
experience, yet maybe some other is in someone else and I missed it).

finally there is a good reason to lower the standard of proof, it is that
reading Celani, Pianteli, Focardi, all of that is SIMPLE to do (for a gang
of engineer with budget, i mean like LHC one magnet is easy to build).

the only real concern I have is that nobody else in the LENR community (for
mainstream they are self-delusioned and won't recognize their mother with a
LENR logo T-shirt) seems to have success in making a powerful gas reactor.
Maybe short budget, maybe just hiding and preparing for fast sales soon,

however alternative are not coherent either.

DGT might have problem on longterm usage (the buzz is possible), but their
claims, on the horizon of few weeks, and as far as they could test, was
correct when done. And latest behaviors show that they were anyway
confident, and betting their balls.

The same kind of reasoning with Concezzi and NIWeek, make me hugely
confident.

we should stop being afraid of our shadow. LENr is normal physic, and LENR
energy is more rational industry than renewable.

I've noticed that behavior of oppressed minorities (like bikes on roads.
see http://www.johnforester.com ), that integrate the beliefs of the
mainstream, despite the facts that everyday prove the opposite, and even
for those who oppose strongly the mainstream. It is very hard not to absorb
the mainstream values (I think it is the subject of some cognitive science
sector, on which I've read some article), even if you know it is wrong.

I see everyday very various pathological science, there are some in LENR
who look pathologic, but mainstream is crowded with such too. Without the
support of groupthink, LENR is quite easily cleaned from bad science.

2012/7/8 Guenter Wildgruber 

> Alain,
> You most probably make an error of judgement.
>
> DGT up to now delivered 'facts' which I could assemble on a sunday
> afternoon (like today).
> Peter Gluck did a good job of briefing them, so at least they are coherent
> in WHAT THEY SAY!
> What they DO or HAVE is an another matter altogether.
> Rossi is telling us that the sun is rising when in fact it is setting.
> Beautiful, when he talks to his believers.
> Rossi exactly delivered nothing except blabbering about his second
> generation of vaporware.
> Not far behind is DGT, which exactly did what? Deliver nothing.
>
> To repeat: I think, as a matter of fact, that LENR is real, but not nearly
> as far to commercial application as Rossi/DGT claim.
>
> The next two months will show us the evidence.
> Please do not be disappointed..
> At least I will not, because it is hard to disappoint a pessimist/cautious
> realist  (not pathoskeptic).
>
> Guenter
>
>--
> *Von:* Alain Sepeda 
> *An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Gesendet:* 16:36 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012
>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
>
> In fact, and it is my own position, and I understand that some disagree,
> For DGT I have passed the "I cannot explain".
> With my experience, my behavioral analysis of business, and various data
> and analysis gathered, I can say that the positive outcome (at a few
> details uncertain), is sure beyond the reasonable doubt.
>
> For Rossi, I'm still uncomfortable, but beside clear lies and probable
> lies, and things to check, the key facts seems good, because of others
> reaction and claims.
> ...
>
>
>


Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
Jojo,

Maybe, maybe not.
Count me in the doubter's camp.
As I tried to explain: 400++ degC is a domain where recrystallization occurs. 
this is not your comfortable home-temperature.

See 'the laws of recrystallization', subtopic  -- Laws of recrystallization --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy)

It is ONE thing to question ONE law, but a different thing to question quite a 
bunch of them simultaneously,.

As an engineer with some philosophical leanings (quite rare) I tell You that I 
am not quite ready to put Rossi into the alltime hall of fame of the  likes of 
Plato, Aristoteles or Einstein.
My guess is, that he is more like a Karl May character, who pretended to have 
visited distant lands, without ever experiencing them, or messing things up, 
doing a disservice to us all.


Sorry.
Guenter







 Von: Jojo Jaro 
An: Vortex  
Gesendet: 17:31 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 

 
Yes, 600c seems like an overstretch only because we 
do not understand what's going on.  Just like how Huzienga and Parks would 
think of Cold Fusion.  They don't understand it, so it is an 
overstretch.
 
However, Axil seems to have done a good job in 
stitching together a probable explanation that can easily explain this 
600C.  This result is entirely probable in the context of Carbon 
Nanostructure-based LENR.  Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR can be more 
consistent and controllable so I do not see a problem with 600C, or even 1000C 
reaction temps.
 
Many seems to have recognized the 
possibility of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR paradigm, most notable 
of which may include both Ed Storms and W&L.
 
I have speculated repeatedly in the past that one 
of the reason why Rossi changed to a flat design was due to the need to deliver 
more consistent Sparking/arc discharge.  Now, evidence is mounting 
that such an environment is consistent with Carbon Nanosturcture-based 
LENR, as these Carbon Nanostructures are easily created in such an electric 
discharge environment.   In fact, I would go one step further 
and speculate that I believe Rossi's new flat design may be a hybrid Arc 
Discharge/CVD reactor that creates abundant Carbon Nanostructures that appear 
to 
be critical to increased power density.   
 
We know that Carbon Nanotubes are good NAE 
candidates.  In Lou's post of W&L slides, W&L presents compelling 
evidence of the possibility of Graphene as a possible NAE.  Both of 
these Nanosturcutures appear to be good platforms for the Nuclear 
Active Environment.  If one recognizes the possibility of these Carbon 
Nanostructures as the NAE, one will not have too much problems believing the 
Rossi 600C stable operating temps.
 
Jojo
 
 
  
- Original Message - 
>From: Guenter  Wildgruber 
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
>Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 10:50 
PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C  Operations
>
>
>
>
>Rossi, the sparrow does a good job of concealing his hand, in poker  speech.
>And endlessly promises. Bids up his hand to 600degC, knowing that  1000degC 
>would give him a good laugh, even from the most friendly of his  friends.
>
>
>What I tried to do, is argue, that 600degC is already an overstretch of  the 
>poker-hand from both sides: Rossi AND DGT.
>Maybe I am wrong. 
>
>Actually I hope so, because the planet would be safe for another couple  of 
>hundred years, and could heal from human folly.
>
>
>Guenter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Guenter
>
>
>
>
>
> Von: Jojo Jaro  
>An: Vortex  
>Gesendet: 15:25 Sonntag,  8.Juli 2012
>Betreff: Re:  [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
>
>...The 
  assumption undergriding a pseudo-skeptics attitude is that he understands 
  everything there is to understand about the subject, therefore whatever he 
  does not understand must be false. 
> 
>This of course is the sad state of attitude  prevailing in modern science 
>nowadays.  
>Jojo
> 
> 
> 
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Jojo Jaro
Yes, 600c seems like an overstretch only because we do not understand what's 
going on.  Just like how Huzienga and Parks would think of Cold Fusion.  They 
don't understand it, so it is an overstretch.

However, Axil seems to have done a good job in stitching together a probable 
explanation that can easily explain this 600C.  This result is entirely 
probable in the context of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR.  Carbon 
Nanostructure-based LENR can be more consistent and controllable so I do not 
see a problem with 600C, or even 1000C reaction temps.

Many seems to have recognized the possibility of Carbon Nanostructure-based 
LENR paradigm, most notable of which may include both Ed Storms and W&L.

I have speculated repeatedly in the past that one of the reason why Rossi 
changed to a flat design was due to the need to deliver more consistent 
Sparking/arc discharge.  Now, evidence is mounting that such an environment is 
consistent with Carbon Nanosturcture-based LENR, as these Carbon Nanostructures 
are easily created in such an electric discharge environment.   In fact, I 
would go one step further and speculate that I believe Rossi's new flat design 
may be a hybrid Arc Discharge/CVD reactor that creates abundant Carbon 
Nanostructures that appear to be critical to increased power density.   

We know that Carbon Nanotubes are good NAE candidates.  In Lou's post of W&L 
slides, W&L presents compelling evidence of the possibility of Graphene as a 
possible NAE.  Both of these Nanosturcutures appear to be good platforms for 
the Nuclear Active Environment.  If one recognizes the possibility of these 
Carbon Nanostructures as the NAE, one will not have too much problems believing 
the Rossi 600C stable operating temps.

Jojo


  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Guenter Wildgruber 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 10:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations




  Rossi, the sparrow does a good job of concealing his hand, in poker speech.
  And endlessly promises. Bids up his hand to 600degC, knowing that 1000degC 
would give him a good laugh, even from the most friendly of his friends.


  What I tried to do, is argue, that 600degC is already an overstretch of the 
poker-hand from both sides: Rossi AND DGT.
  Maybe I am wrong. 

  Actually I hope so, because the planet would be safe for another couple of 
hundred years, and could heal from human folly.


  Guenter








  Guenter




--
  Von: Jojo Jaro 
  An: Vortex  
  Gesendet: 15:25 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012
  Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations


  ...The assumption undergriding a pseudo-skeptics attitude is that he 
understands everything there is to understand about the subject, therefore 
whatever he does not understand must be false.

  This of course is the sad state of attitude prevailing in modern science 
nowadays.

  Jojo








Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
Alain,
You most probably make an error of judgement.

DGT up to now delivered 'facts' which I could assemble on a sunday afternoon 
(like today).
Peter Gluck did a good job of briefing them, so at least they are coherent in 
WHAT THEY SAY!
What they DO or HAVE is an another matter altogether.
Rossi is telling us that the sun is rising when in fact it is setting. 
Beautiful, when he talks to his believers.
Rossi exactly delivered nothing except blabbering about his second generation 
of vaporware.
Not far behind is DGT, which exactly did what? Deliver nothing.

To repeat: I think, as a matter of fact, that LENR is real, but not nearly as 
far to commercial application as Rossi/DGT claim.

The next two months will show us the evidence.
Please do not be disappointed..
At least I will not, because it is hard to disappoint a pessimist/cautious 
realist  (not pathoskeptic).

Guenter





 Von: Alain Sepeda 
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 16:36 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 

In fact, and it is my own position, and I understand that some disagree,
For DGT I have passed the "I cannot explain".
With my experience, my behavioral analysis of business, and various data and 
analysis gathered, I can say that the positive outcome (at a few details 
uncertain), is sure beyond the reasonable doubt.

For Rossi, I'm still uncomfortable, but beside clear lies and probable lies, 
and things to check, the key facts seems good, because of others reaction and 
claims.
...

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
Jojo,

rest assured that I deplore pathoskeptizism as much as You do.

But this does not make me change flags and join the other side.

This is just like in a war.
if You recognize that your party is wrong, You have two options:
a) change sides
b) be a pacifist

Pathoskeptics firmly belong to the (a)-camp.
I myself am trying to be in the (b)-camp ofcourse, which means: be skeptical 
wrt BOTH sides.

Thhis metaphor has its weaknesses, and I do not want to overstretch it. This 
would be silly in its own right.

Sitting in between, repeating myself ad nauseam, I must say that on the one 
hand LENR is REAL, on the other hand Rossi/DGT probably overbid their hand, in 
poker-speech.
In other words: They CLAIM to have an elephant, which is more probably than not 
a midge, or a sparrow, with lots of fleas and lice and other parasites.
Did You ever have a sparrow in your hands?
I did.
You would be surprised!

Rossi, the sparrow does a good job of concealing his hand, in poker speech.
And endlessly promises. Bids up his hand to 600degC, knowing that 1000degC 
would give him a good laugh, even from the most friendly of his friends.

What I tried to do, is argue, that 600degC is already an overstretch of the 
poker-hand from both sides: Rossi AND DGT.
Maybe I am wrong. 

Actually I hope so, because the planet would be safe for another couple of 
hundred years, and could heal from human folly.

Guenter




Guenter





 Von: Jojo Jaro 
An: Vortex  
Gesendet: 15:25 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 
...The assumption undergriding a pseudo-skeptics attitude is that he 
understands everything there is to understand about the subject, therefore 
whatever he does not understand must be false.
 
This of course is the sad state of attitude 
prevailing in modern science nowadays.  
Jojo

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Alain Sepeda
In fact, and it is my own position, and I understand that some disagree,
For DGT I have passed the "I cannot explain".
With my experience, my behavioral analysis of business, and various data
and analysis gathered, I can say that the positive outcome (at a few
details uncertain), is sure beyond the reasonable doubt.

For Rossi, I'm still uncomfortable, but beside clear lies and probable
lies, and things to check, the key facts seems good, because of others
reaction and claims.

note that for me the claims are only action that someone do to expect
reactions. I believe in something when the interpreted intent of that
action, is only coherent with the positive outcome.
to be simple, DGT have gone so far that assuming fraud or delusion, their
reaction are neither rational, not even coherent with their psychiatric (
:> ) profile, and others reactions around.
Their data, their discussions are coherent and evidence of knowledge linked
to a real reactor, and their effort are nonsense is that real react is not
mostly working maybe a little erratic, but enough stable to convince to bet
your balls). their critics are even supporting their claims. Thanks to
stremmenos and Rossi. thanks also to their board of director and their
economic profile (anti-Rossi style).

For Rossi, in fact his best support for me is DGT. don't laugh. Concezzi
too.

With my acquired conviction, I jump from a probabilistic conviction of
99.9%, to the translation in normal life : "I'm SURE", more than most of
the things that circulate on TV, in news, in science... and believe me, I'm
very skeptical in many things, from conspiracy theories to mainstream
consensus, even to myself.
I say you I'm SURE, but like sur rise in the morning, it have to be checked
every morning, in case something have changed.

I was criticizing the tendency in LENR community to be overcarefull.
There is a moment in real life when you have to bet your ball, or rather
stay in your bed and wait for death, which is sure.
I'm sure LENR is real, DGT have a reactor not far from said, Rossi have
good results.
Anyway tomorrow morning, have to check if that have changed.

2012/7/8 Jojo Jaro 

> **
> A pseudo-skeptic can not explain in his mind the results, therefore, in
> his mind, since he can not explain it, must be a fraud.  The assumption
> undergriding a pseudo-skeptics attitude is that he understands everything
> there is to understand about the subject, therefore whatever he does not
> understand must be false.
>
> This of course is the sad state of attitude prevailing in modern science
> nowadays.
>
>


Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Jojo Jaro
What, pray tell, is the chemical that can bend spoons without eating the flesh 
off your fingers?  A quick google of the terms "Geller Spoon Bending Chemical" 
revealed nothing.  Many are so sure that Geller's spoon bending feat is a trick 
(and I'm not saying that it's not), but they can't say how it's done.  

The point I am making is simply this:  Many people are SO sure that Rossi is a 
fraud, yet they can not say exactly How Rossi is doing this alleged fraud. 
(Does this remind you of Mary Yugo?) That is what differentiates a true skeptic 
from a pseudo-skeptic.  You see, a true skeptic can not explain the results he 
sees so he keeps an open mind.  A pseudo-skeptic can not explain in his mind 
the results, therefore, in his mind, since he can not explain it, must be a 
fraud.  The assumption undergriding a pseudo-skeptics attitude is that he 
understands everything there is to understand about the subject, therefore 
whatever he does not understand must be false.

This of course is the sad state of attitude prevailing in modern science 
nowadays.




Jojo





  - Original Message - 
  From: Guenter Wildgruber 
  To: Guenter Wildgruber ; vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 7:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations


  A (psycho)analysis of Rossi/DGT or an exercise in the theory and practice of 
(self-)deception.

  There is some LENR effect, I am sure. This just as a disclaimer.

  We all can bend spoons,right?,  

  But Uri Geller did it better.
  Why?
  He had a magic sauce.

  Interestingly enough Feynman met Geller, and had to say this:
  ...
  I also looked into extrasensory perception, and PSI phenomena, and the latest 
craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able to bend keys by 
rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his hotel room, on his invitation, 
to see a demonstration of both mindreading and bending keys. He didn't do any 
mindreading that succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held a 
key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it works better 
under water, and so you can picture all of us standing in the bathroom with the 
water turned on and the key under it, and him rubbing the key with his finger. 
Nothing happened. So I was unable to investigate that phenomenon. 
  ...
  --> 'Cargo Cult Science'

  Actually Feynman did not figure out what Geller's trick was, but it was one, 
which later on was found to be some chemical treatment of his spoons, which 
Geller did not seem to have at hand when Feynman visited him.
  Now Geller is still a celebrity in some circles, whereas Feynman is known to 
some physics geeks and folks eg interested in the analysis of the 
Challenger-catastropy, where he applied common sense and some basic principles. 
No quantum magic. Not so spectacular, right?

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

  As said.
  A cautionary tale.
  Hope I am wrong.

  Guenter




Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
Alain,

... nothing is proven. ..
yes, ofcourse.  this is the doubter's dilemma.
You cannot disprove the solipsist position, except applying -- and accepting -- 
a minimum of common sense.

It is the dose, which makes the poison, to cite Paracelsus.

wrt ..."exceptional evidence" ...
I do not use that term, which is, as you imply, very problematic.
It is actually a rewording of Ockham's principle, if you carefully analyze it, 
and belongs to the set of axioms of our belief system, but only applies to 
immaterial beliefs, so to say. If I kick You in the butt, so to say, immaterial 
beliefs stop to work, and Your inner solipsist is deeply challenged to ignore 
the evidence.

All the best

Guenter





 Von: Alain Sepeda 
An: Vortex List  
Gesendet: 14:11 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 

There are situation where comfortable doubt is just another delusion.
If you apply the same standard of proof to normal facts, nothing is proven.

LENR is real, so why apply the stupid "exceptional evidence" ?

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Alain Sepeda
There are situation where comfortable doubt is just another delusion.
If you apply the same standard of proof to normal facts, nothing is proven.

LENR is real, so why apply the stupid "exceptional evidence" ?


good critics don't need "exceptional bias".

the behavior of DGT is not coherent with having nothing, nor having low
power.
however it is coherent with unexpected problems for DGT, or with better
more professional public relation management.

2012/7/8 Guenter Wildgruber 

> A (psycho)analysis of Rossi/DGT or an exercise in the theory and practice
> of (self-)deception.
>
> There is some LENR effect, I am sure. This just as a disclaimer.
>
> We all can bend spoons,right?,
> But Uri Geller did it better.
> Why?
> He had a magic sauce.
>
> Interestingly enough Feynman met Geller, and had to say this:
> ...
> I also looked into extrasensory perception, and PSI phenomena, and the
> latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able to bend
> keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his hotel room, on his
> invitation, to see a demonstration of both mindreading and bending keys. He
> didn't do any mindreading that succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess.
> And my boy held a key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he
> told us it works better under water, and so you can picture all of us
> standing in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and
> him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was unable to
> investigate that phenomenon.
> ...
> --> 'Cargo Cult Science'
>
> Actually Feynman did not figure out what Geller's trick was, but it was
> one, which later on was found to be some chemical treatment of his spoons,
> which Geller did not seem to have at hand when Feynman visited him.
> Now Geller is still a celebrity in some circles, whereas Feynman is known
> to some physics geeks and folks eg interested in the analysis of the
> Challenger-catastropy, where he applied common sense and some basic
> principles. No quantum magic. Not so spectacular, right?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster
>
> As said.
> A cautionary tale.
> Hope I am wrong.
>
> Guenter
>
>


Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
A (psycho)analysis of Rossi/DGT or an exercise in the theory and practice of 
(self-)deception.

There is some LENR effect, I am sure. This just as a disclaimer.

We all can bend spoons,right?,  

But Uri Geller did it better.
Why?
He had a magic sauce.

Interestingly enough Feynman met Geller, and had to say this:
...
I also looked into extrasensory perception, and PSI phenomena, and the latest 
craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able to bend keys by 
rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his hotel room, on his invitation, 
to see a demonstration of both mindreading and bending keys. He didn't do any 
mindreading that succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held a 
key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it works better 
under water, and so you can picture all of us standing in the bathroom with the 
water turned on and the key under it, and him rubbing the key with his finger. 
Nothing happened. So I was unable to investigate that phenomenon. 
...
--> 'Cargo Cult Science'

Actually Feynman did not figure out what Geller's trick was, but it was one, 
which later on was found to be some chemical treatment of his spoons, which 
Geller did not seem to have at hand when Feynman visited him.
Now Geller is still a celebrity in some circles, whereas Feynman is known to 
some physics geeks and folks eg interested in the analysis of the 
Challenger-catastropy, where he applied common sense and some basic principles. 
No quantum magic. Not so spectacular, right?

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

As said.
A cautionary tale.
Hope I am wrong.

Guenter

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
to
be clear:

a) LENR is a real effect to me.
b) What I doubt are the claims of Rossi/DGT.

(a) should put the scientific community to shame and reconsider their methods.
(b) is a different animal: Pseudo-engineers, companies, speculators, phantasts
claiming that a midge is an elephant.

No need to elaborate on (a) on this time and place. This is confined to the
laboratory and the minds of scientists.

But (b) needs careful consideration, because, well, it is potentially
earth-shattering in the physical domain of our livelihood.
Not Your average Higgs Boson, which is just a mental construct, albeit
interesting.

We should not fool ourselves wrt (b).

I dare to apply some commonsense plus engineering principles plus -ahem-
psychology.
I explicitly exclude science here, because it is corruptable on several levels.
The main being self-deception or bogus theories.
Engineering being different, because it has to show some real-world-evidence.

There is no proof for (b). Only claims.
To keep my sanity, I critically watch the claims, and reject them if they
contradict my principles.
Those are not hammered in stone, ie I am hopefully able to revise on evidence
and reorder my principles.
Maybe I even believe in 'God' if he talks to me in a convincing manner. But up
to now he did not show up.

What I am trying to do, is apply my methods of thinking and acting, therefore I
stand where I stand.

600degC claims on an industrial scale for a sufficiently long time without
side-effects currently do not pass my smell-test.
Watch the caveats, or the fine-print, as it is said!

That's it, folks.

Guenter

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-08 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
Mark,

You're right, ofcourse, and maybe I just overreacted.


Just summarized my argument in a personal mail to Eric, which I reproduce here:

Eric,

basically I think that LENR needs some crystalline structure of the 
base-material (Ni, Pd,...) to start and be maintained.
This structure weakens with increasing temperature.
If the material melts, the process stops. This we know.

Now the process is not homogenous, but seems to concentrate on hot spots. wrt 
this I refer to the electron microscopic analysis of material which has been 
active for some time, where the material definitely melted at those spots.

Now 600degC would not be a problem, because the melting point of eg Ni is far 
above above that.
It even could be a positive thing, because of recrystallization-effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy)

So my argument critically depends on the inhomogeneity of the process. If eg 
10% of the material (I expect much less at a given time) is active, for the 
whole system to produce an average temperature of 600degC, these active zones 
would have to be MUCH hotter than that, basically surpassing the melting point, 
which stops the process.

So another zone has to take over.

Upon further thinking, this actually could be the case, under some very special 
conditions, ie one zone melts, then recrystallizes, later on becomes active 
again. But this critically depends on the zones being quite small -- 
sub-micrometer -- AND maintaining enough surface for H+ or D+ to enter the 
crystal again.

Here lies my difficulty.
But maybe I'm wrong.
So maybe I should restate: I would be VERY SURPRISED.

Anyway, lets hope the best, expect the worst.

Guenter





 Von: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 1:23 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012
Betreff: RE: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 

So Guenter,
 
Why would seriously challenging you worldview worry you?  Wouldn’t you prefer 
the truth, even if it completely decimates your worldview?  As a 
scientist/engineer, I want to know what *IS*, not what happens to agree with my 
current understanding of what is…
 
-Mark
 
From:Guenter Wildgruber [mailto:gwildgru...@ymail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 3:50 PM
To: Peter Gluck
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 
Peter,
somehow I missed that.
Anyway.
200 degC would be quite something.
400degC would be disruptive.
>600degC earth-shattering.
 
A range where I am having some conceptual difficulties with.
Presumably theory also.
But this is commonsensical extrapolation from my side,without any firm ground, 
I must confess.
 
As stated, such a simple parameter like temperature could seriously challenge 
my worldview, which worries me somehow, but I do not reject it out of hand.
 
We will see.
 
all the best
Guenter
 



Von:Peter Gluck 
An: Guenter Wildgruber  
CC: "vortex-l@eskimo.com"  
Gesendet: 20:27 Samstag, 7.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 
Dear Guenter,
 
Nothing easier- if you make a Google Search for "Defkalion 650C" or a search on 
their Forum for 650C you will find tens of links. It was also written at Mats's 
Nyteknik.
 
An example from many: 
 
Real news from Defkalion « nickelpower 
nickelpower.org/2012/03/26/real-news-from-defkalion/
26 Mar 2012 – Rossi is a “one-man-band” and Defkalion has 27 scientists.  
they say that they reactor work until 650C (limit of bare rector test) and 
according .
 
I had a cognitive shock- what they have is a process different
from Piantelli's based on preformed nanoclusters. Those clusters are destroyed 
fast over 400C.
There are many implications but I don't think we have to change our 
world/science views.
And now Rossi re-discovers this high temperature process.
Progress!
 
Peter
 
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Guenter Wildgruber  
wrote:
Dear Peter,  obviously I missed this one,
Could You provide a link?
 
The temperature issue obviously is a very central one, and, I must confess, 
contradicts my theories of the inner working of the e-cat/Hyperion, which is 
somewhat like a random heating up on several locations.
If this would be the case , those random heat-centers (estimated >>1000degC)  
would be self-annihilate by melting.
 
Ofcourse we are theoretizing on this issue, but controllability in the 650degC 
domain would indicate that the process is quite homogenous, and not sporadicly 
dispersed over say 1-10 um2 heat centers- as I up to now hypothesized, on 
hopefully realistic grounds.
 
But maybe this is only my worldview, which crumbles.
 
If this would be the case, it would indicate that this is a VERY benign 
process, and, I must confess, I would -as said- have to rework my entire 
worldview, which is based on randomness and the universe's indifference to our 
human desires at lar

RE: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-07 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint
So Guenter,

 

Why would seriously challenging you worldview worry you?  Wouldn’t you prefer 
the truth, even if it completely decimates your worldview?  As a 
scientist/engineer, I want to know what *IS*, not what happens to agree with my 
current understanding of what is…

 

-Mark

 

From: Guenter Wildgruber [mailto:gwildgru...@ymail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 3:50 PM
To: Peter Gluck
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

 

Peter,

somehow I missed that.

Anyway.

200 degC would be quite something.

400degC would be disruptive.

>600degC earth-shattering.

 

A range where I am having some conceptual difficulties with.

Presumably theory also.

But this is commonsensical extrapolation from my side,without any firm ground, 
I must confess.

 

As stated, such a simple parameter like temperature could seriously challenge 
my worldview, which worries me somehow, but I do not reject it out of hand.

 

We will see.

 

all the best

Guenter

 

  _  

Von: Peter Gluck 
An: Guenter Wildgruber  
CC: "vortex-l@eskimo.com"  
Gesendet: 20:27 Samstag, 7.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

 

Dear Guenter,

 

Nothing easier- if you make a Google Search for "Defkalion 650C" or a search on 
their Forum for 650C you will find tens of links. It was also written at Mats's 
Nyteknik.

 

An example from many: 

 

Real news from Defkalion « nickelpower 

nickelpower.org/2012/03/26/real-news-from-defkalion/

26 Mar 2012 – Rossi is a “one-man-band” and Defkalion has 27 scientists.  
they say that they reactor work until 650C (limit of bare rector test) and 
according .

 

I had a cognitive shock- what they have is a process different

from Piantelli's based on preformed nanoclusters. Those clusters are destroyed 
fast over 400C.

There are many implications but I don't think we have to change our 
world/science views.

And now Rossi re-discovers this high temperature process.

Progress!

 

Peter

 

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Guenter Wildgruber  
wrote:

Dear Peter,  obviously I missed this one,

Could You provide a link?

 

The temperature issue obviously is a very central one, and, I must confess, 
contradicts my theories of the inner working of the e-cat/Hyperion, which is 
somewhat like a random heating up on several locations.

If this would be the case , those random heat-centers (estimated >>1000degC)  
would be self-annihilate by melting.

 

Ofcourse we are theoretizing on this issue, but controllability in the 650degC 
domain would indicate that the process is quite homogenous, and not sporadicly 
dispersed over say 1-10 um2 heat centers- as I up to now hypothesized, on 
hopefully realistic grounds.

 

But maybe this is only my worldview, which crumbles.

 

If this would be the case, it would indicate that this is a VERY benign 
process, and, I must confess, I would -as said- have to rework my entire 
worldview, which is based on randomness and the universe's indifference to our 
human desires at large. (hope this is understandable)

 

I am not ready for that.

Therefore I remain sceptical. LENR: Yes. 

Saving us from our follies - or extending them: No.

 

All the best

Guenter

 

  _  

Von: Peter Gluck 
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 15:19 Samstag, 7.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

 

Dear Axil

I agree- however DGTG started to speak about temperatures over 650 C from 
February this year, so if somebody has invented LENR ++- it was Defkalion.

peter

 





 

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck

Cluj, Romania

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com <http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/> 

 

 



Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-07 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
Peter,
somehow I missed that.
Anyway.
200 degC would be quite something.

400degC would be disruptive.
>600degC earth-shattering.

A range where I am having some conceptual difficulties with.
Presumably theory also.
But this is commonsensical extrapolation from my side,without any firm ground, 
I must confess.


As stated, such a simple parameter like temperature could seriously challenge 
my worldview, which worries me somehow, but I do not reject it out of hand.

We will see.

all the best
Guenter




 Von: Peter Gluck 
An: Guenter Wildgruber  
CC: "vortex-l@eskimo.com"  
Gesendet: 20:27 Samstag, 7.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 

Dear Guenter,

Nothing easier- if you make a Google Search for "Defkalion 650C" or a search on 
their Forum for 650C you will find tens of links. It was also written at Mats's 
Nyteknik.

An example from many: 

Real news from Defkalion « nickelpower 
nickelpower.org/2012/03/26/real-news-from-defkalion/
26 Mar 2012 – Rossi is a “one-man-band” and Defkalion has 27 scientists.  
they say that they reactor work until 650C (limit of bare rector test) and 
according .

I had a cognitive shock- what they have is a process different
from Piantelli's based on preformed nanoclusters. Those clusters are destroyed 
fast over 400C.
There are many implications but I don't think we have to change our 
world/science views.
And now Rossi re-discovers this high temperature process.
Progress!

Peter

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Guenter Wildgruber  
wrote:

Dear Peter,  obviously I missed this one,
>Could You provide a link?
>
>
>The temperature issue obviously is a very central one, and, I must confess, 
>contradicts my theories of the inner working of the e-cat/Hyperion, which is 
>somewhat like a random heating up on several locations.
>If this would be the case , those random heat-centers (estimated >>1000degC)  
>would be self-annihilate by melting.
>
>
>Ofcourse we are theoretizing on this issue, but controllability in the 650degC 
>domain would indicate that the process is quite homogenous, and not sporadicly 
>dispersed over say 1-10 um2 heat centers- as I up to now hypothesized, on 
>hopefully realistic grounds.
>
>
>But maybe this is only my worldview, which crumbles.
>
>
>
>If this would be the case, it would indicate that this is a VERY benign 
>process, and, I must confess, I would -as said- have to rework my entire 
>worldview, which is based on randomness and the universe's indifference to our 
>human desires at large. (hope this is understandable)
>
>
>
>I am not ready for that.
>Therefore I remain sceptical. LENR: Yes. 
>
>Saving us from our follies - or extending them: No.
>
>
>
>All the best
>Guenter
>
>
>
>
> Von: Peter Gluck 
>An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
>Gesendet: 15:19 Samstag, 7.Juli 2012
>Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
> 
>
>
>Dear Axil
>I agree- however DGTG started to speak about temperatures over 650 C from 
>February this year, so if somebody has invented LENR ++- it was Defkalion.
>peter
>
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-07 Thread Peter Gluck
Dear Guenter,

Nothing easier- if you make a Google Search for "Defkalion 650C" or a
search on their Forum for 650C you will find tens of links. It was also
written at Mats's Nyteknik.

An example from many:

Real news from Defkalion « nickelpower
nickelpower.org/2012/03/26/real-news-from-defkalion/
26 Mar 2012 – Rossi is a “one-man-band” and Defkalion has 27 scientists.
 they say that they reactor work until 650C (limit of bare rector test)
and according .

I had a cognitive shock- what they have is a process different
from Piantelli's based on preformed nanoclusters. Those clusters are
destroyed fast over 400C.
There are many implications but I don't think we have to change our
world/science views.
And now Rossi re-discovers this high temperature process.
Progress!

Peter

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Guenter Wildgruber wrote:

> Dear Peter,  obviously I missed this one,
> Could You provide a link?
>
> The temperature issue obviously is a very central one, and, I must
> confess, contradicts my theories of the inner working of the
> e-cat/Hyperion, which is somewhat like a random heating up on several
> locations.
> If this would be the case , those random heat-centers (estimated
> >>1000degC)  would be self-annihilate by melting.
>
> Ofcourse we are theoretizing on this issue, but controllability in the
> 650degC domain would indicate that the process is quite homogenous, and not
> sporadicly dispersed over say 1-10 um2 heat centers- as I up to now
> hypothesized, on hopefully realistic grounds.
>
> But maybe this is only my worldview, which crumbles.
>
> If this would be the case, it would indicate that this is a VERY benign
> process, and, I must confess, I would -as said- have to rework my entire
> worldview, which is based on randomness and the universe's indifference to
> our human desires at large. (hope this is understandable)
>
> I am not ready for that.
> Therefore I remain sceptical. LENR: Yes.
> Saving us from our follies - or extending them: No.
>
> All the best
> Guenter
>
>   ------------------
> *Von:* Peter Gluck 
> *An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Gesendet:* 15:19 Samstag, 7.Juli 2012
> *Betreff:* Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
>
> Dear Axil
> I agree- however DGTG started to speak about temperatures over 650 C from
> February this year, so if somebody has invented LENR ++- it was Defkalion.
> peter
>
>
>


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


Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-07 Thread Guenter Wildgruber
Dear Peter,  obviously I missed this one,
Could You provide a link?

The temperature issue obviously is a very central one, and, I must confess, 
contradicts my theories of the inner working of the e-cat/Hyperion, which is 
somewhat like a random heating up on several locations.
If this would be the case , those random heat-centers (estimated >>1000degC)  
would be self-annihilate by melting.

Ofcourse we are theoretizing on this issue, but controllability in the 650degC 
domain would indicate that the process is quite homogenous, and not sporadicly 
dispersed over say 1-10 um2 heat centers- as I up to now hypothesized, on 
hopefully realistic grounds.

But maybe this is only my worldview, which crumbles.


If this would be the case, it would indicate that this is a VERY benign 
process, and, I must confess, I would -as said- have to rework my entire 
worldview, which is based on randomness and the universe's indifference to our 
human desires at large. (hope this is understandable)


I am not ready for that.
Therefore I remain sceptical. LENR: Yes. 

Saving us from our follies - or extending them: No.


All the best
Guenter



 Von: Peter Gluck 
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 15:19 Samstag, 7.Juli 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
 

Dear Axil
I agree- however DGTG started to speak about temperatures over 650 C from 
February this year, so if somebody has invented LENR ++- it was Defkalion.
peter

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-07 Thread Peter Gluck
Dear Axil
I agree- however DGTG started to speak about temperatures over 650 C from
February this year, so if somebody has invented LENR ++- it was Defkalion.
peter

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Extending on Peter Gluck’s concept of LENR+  as a supplemented LENR
> design, I offer to classify this new Rossi design as a LENR++ design.
>
>
> DGT LENR+ technology has been superseded by Rossi’s new LERN++ design. I
> will wait for this new Rossi device to be commercially available for home
> use before I make a buying decision on my own personal LENR unit.
>
>
> Cheers:   Axil
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>>  This new information is the major reason for my post.  The control is
>> now far superior if the recent reports are accurate.
>>
>> The actual operating temperature of the core internally is not different
>> unless it can now be elevated without danger of thermal run away, and if
>> the process is totally under control of something as simple as an electric
>> current then he has a much improved device.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>  -----Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 4:12 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
>>
>>  In the old style E-Cat core, the flow of coolant water was the way the
>> E-Cat heat production process was controlled. Water flow was increased to
>> retard the reaction, and conversely water flow was retarded to increase the
>> reaction.
>> On the other hand, the DGT core is also thermionic. DGT turns the
>> reaction off and on to produce a pulsed heat source where heat generation
>> is averaged over a period of time.
>>
>> Because the reaction mechanism is no longer thermionic, there is no
>> coolant involved, electric control alone can regulate the reaction in the
>> E-Cat core. In the new solid state E-Cat design,a steady flow of input
>> electric current results in a steady level of direct output of heat
>> production.
>> The elimination of thermionic control is major progress made possible by
>> the design of the solid state E-Cat, IMHO.
>>
>> Cheers:   Axil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>>> I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of
>>> 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said
>>> the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water
>>> only just boiled. Now he claims the core is  stable at 600C but he is
>>> not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or
>>> puffery?
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson 
>>> wrote:
>>>  > Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi
>>> ECAT can
>>> > operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable.
>>>  This is a
>>> > remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof
>>> will
>>> > be delivered soon.
>>> > The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the
>>> > temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that
>>> appears
>>> > to be under control.  To operate in such a manner suggests that the
>>> > mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of
>>> > temperature of the device.  Actually it might imply that now there is
>>> a form
>>> > of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy
>>> > generation process once a threshold temperature is reached.
>>> > I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of
>>> the
>>> > output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices
>>> from the
>>> > strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to
>>> contend
>>> > with.   Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the
>>> > reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature
>>> degradations.
>>> > There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and
>>> > variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices.  Perhaps Rossi has
>>> > found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and
>>> an
>>> > electrical signal that work together as a system.  Time will reveal if
>>> all
>>> > or any of this 

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-06 Thread Harry Veeder
Rossi behaviour and speech is puzzling. ;-)
I gave up in november trying to weave a coherent picture of his research.
Harry

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:07 PM, David L Babcock  wrote:
> Your puzzling is puzzling, Harry.
> Rossi is claiming (I think it was) 10 KWatts of power from a unit. There are
> few practical ways to measure that besides (in essence) boiling water. A
> gale of air?
>
> I will give you, that Rossi may not have simultaneously attained 600 degC
> and 10 KWatts. This is what an efficient electric power generator needs, so
> a shortcoming here could indeed show puffery.
>
> In either case, a useful device, at least for pool heating!  How many
> gallons can you keep at 10 degC above ambient, with 10 KWatts ?
>
> Ol' Bab
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/6/2012 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of
> 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said
> the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water
> only just boiled. Now he claims the core is  stable at 600C but he is
> not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or
> puffery?
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
> Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can
> operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable.  This is a
> remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will
> be delivered soon.
> The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the
> temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears
> to be under control.  To operate in such a manner suggests that the
> mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of
> temperature of the device.  Actually it might imply that now there is a form
> of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy
> generation process once a threshold temperature is reached.
> I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the
> output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the
> strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend
> with.   Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the
> reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations.
> There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and
> variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices.  Perhaps Rossi has
> found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an
> electrical signal that work together as a system.  Time will reveal if all
> or any of this is true.
> Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the
> Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control
> handle.  Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated
> with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative
> feedback were dominate?
> I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been
> outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something
> remarkable but then not follow up with the goods.  Perhaps this time we will
> see the results that we so much anticipate.
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>



Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-06 Thread Jojo Jaro
I suggest LENRv2 or LENR2 instead of LENR++ as this is a totally different 
reaction, not just an enhancement of the previous process.  

Version 2 is based on electric control of Carbon Nanotubes instead of  
temperature control of Thermionic Catalysts.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 5:01 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations


  Extending on Peter Gluck’s concept of LENR+  as a supplemented LENR design, I 
offer to classify this new Rossi design as a LENR++ design.



  DGT LENR+ technology has been superseded by Rossi’s new LERN++ design. I will 
wait for this new Rossi device to be commercially available for home use before 
I make a buying decision on my own personal LENR unit.


  Cheers:   Axil



  On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

This new information is the major reason for my post.  The control is now 
far superior if the recent reports are accurate.  

The actual operating temperature of the core internally is not different 
unless it can now be elevated without danger of thermal run away, and if the 
process is totally under control of something as simple as an electric current 
then he has a much improved device.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 4:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations


In the old style E-Cat core, the flow of coolant water was the way the 
E-Cat heat production process was controlled. Water flow was increased to 
retard the reaction, and conversely water flow was retarded to increase the 
reaction. 
On the other hand, the DGT core is also thermionic. DGT turns the reaction 
off and on to produce a pulsed heat source where heat generation is averaged 
over a period of time.
 
Because the reaction mechanism is no longer thermionic, there is no coolant 
involved, electric control alone can regulate the reaction in the E-Cat core. 
In the new solid state E-Cat design,a steady flow of input electric current 
results in a steady level of direct output of heat production.
The elimination of thermionic control is major progress made possible by 
the design of the solid state E-Cat, IMHO. 

Cheers:   Axil



 
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

  I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of
  600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said
  the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water
  only just boiled. Now he claims the core is  stable at 600C but he is
  not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or
  puffery?

  Harry


  On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

  > Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT 
can
  > operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable.  This 
is a
  > remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof 
will
  > be delivered soon.
  > The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the
  > temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that 
appears
  > to be under control.  To operate in such a manner suggests that the
  > mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of
  > temperature of the device.  Actually it might imply that now there is a 
form
  > of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy
  > generation process once a threshold temperature is reached.
  > I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the
  > output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from 
the
  > strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to 
contend
  > with.   Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the
  > reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations.
  > There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and
  > variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices.  Perhaps Rossi has
  > found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an
  > electrical signal that work together as a system.  Time will reveal if 
all
  > or any of this is true.
  > Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the
  > Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control
  > handle.  Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner 
associated
  > with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative
  > feedback were dominate?
  > I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have 
been
  > outlined, but have learned from

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-06 Thread David L Babcock

Your puzzling is puzzling, Harry.
Rossi is claiming (I think it was) 10 KWatts of power from a unit. There 
are few practical ways to measure that besides (in essence) boiling 
water. A gale of air?


I will give you, that Rossi may not have /simultaneously/ attained 600 
degC and 10 KWatts. This is what an efficient electric power generator 
needs, so a shortcoming here could indeed show puffery.


In either case, a useful device, at least for pool heating!  How many 
gallons can you keep at 10 degC above ambient, with 10 KWatts ?


Ol' Bab





On 7/6/2012 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:

I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of
600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said
the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water
only just boiled. Now he claims the core is  stable at 600C but he is
not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or
puffery?

Harry

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can
operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable.  This is a
remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will
be delivered soon.
The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the
temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears
to be under control.  To operate in such a manner suggests that the
mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of
temperature of the device.  Actually it might imply that now there is a form
of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy
generation process once a threshold temperature is reached.
I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the
output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the
strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend
with.   Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the
reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations.
There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and
variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices.  Perhaps Rossi has
found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an
electrical signal that work together as a system.  Time will reveal if all
or any of this is true.
Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the
Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control
handle.  Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated
with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative
feedback were dominate?
I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been
outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something
remarkable but then not follow up with the goods.  Perhaps this time we will
see the results that we so much anticipate.
Dave









Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-06 Thread Axil Axil
Competition is always beneficial to the consumer in any product offering.
The refresher course that Microsoft has provided us in the preceding
decades shows that the consumer is not well served by a monopoly. The
monopolist is free to call his own shots, charge what the market will bear,
and release product at a measured pace that he judges best for his best
interests and disposition.



The more venders that supply a given product, the greater is the advantage
to the consumer. Rossi is attempting to corner the LENR market through the
offering of a superior technology.



It is up to the competitors of Rossi to flush him out into the open so the
competitive forces in the marketplace can flow with great vigor.



When the big multinational energy providers recognize that LENR is real and
can produce a profit, Rossi’s technology will be exposed to intense
competition.



Rossi is wise to take his time to get all his ducks in order to face that
competition and try to stay ahead of it for as long as he can.



Rosssi is smart to keep the sleeping beasts in the energy business as dead
to the LENR world as long as he can manage. So time is on Rossi’s side
until a competitor steps forth (DGT ?) to shake up the world of the
multinational energy producers into frantic and frenzied action.





Cheers:  Axil


On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 5:14 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From Axil
>
> > Things are moving very fast in LENR and is difficult to
> > keep up with Rossi let along surpass him.
>
> ...and from David:
>
> > The control is now far superior if the recent reports are accurate.
>
> I suspect not everyone within the Vort Collective shares what appears
> to be a new level enthusiasm coming from certain members. Too many
> implied predictions from Rossi over the past year and a half have come
> and gone, causing many to become just a tad jaded. While I genuinely
> hope Rossi's latest accomplishments in the solid state realm are
> exactly what they claim to be, major accomplishments, the man also
> appears to be an accomplished carnival barker. It's not that I'm
> implying Rossi is deliberately lying about his latest claims. For me,
> it's more a matter of recalling something Mr. Spock once said: "I
> exaggerated." IOW, Calculated [dis?]information to keep the wheels
> greased.
>
> I wait for more forthcoming solid evidence and independent validation.
> A prototype where we are allowed to kick the tires would be nice too.
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>


Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-06 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
>From Axil

> Things are moving very fast in LENR and is difficult to
> keep up with Rossi let along surpass him.

...and from David:

> The control is now far superior if the recent reports are accurate.

I suspect not everyone within the Vort Collective shares what appears
to be a new level enthusiasm coming from certain members. Too many
implied predictions from Rossi over the past year and a half have come
and gone, causing many to become just a tad jaded. While I genuinely
hope Rossi's latest accomplishments in the solid state realm are
exactly what they claim to be, major accomplishments, the man also
appears to be an accomplished carnival barker. It's not that I'm
implying Rossi is deliberately lying about his latest claims. For me,
it's more a matter of recalling something Mr. Spock once said: "I
exaggerated." IOW, Calculated [dis?]information to keep the wheels
greased.

I wait for more forthcoming solid evidence and independent validation.
A prototype where we are allowed to kick the tires would be nice too.

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



Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-06 Thread Axil Axil
Extending on Peter Gluck’s concept of LENR+  as a supplemented LENR design,
I offer to classify this new Rossi design as a LENR++ design.


DGT LENR+ technology has been superseded by Rossi’s new LERN++ design. I
will wait for this new Rossi device to be commercially available for home
use before I make a buying decision on my own personal LENR unit.


Cheers:   Axil


On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> This new information is the major reason for my post.  The control is now
> far superior if the recent reports are accurate.
>
> The actual operating temperature of the core internally is not different
> unless it can now be elevated without danger of thermal run away, and if
> the process is totally under control of something as simple as an electric
> current then he has a much improved device.
>
> Dave
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 4:12 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
>
>  In the old style E-Cat core, the flow of coolant water was the way the
> E-Cat heat production process was controlled. Water flow was increased to
> retard the reaction, and conversely water flow was retarded to increase the
> reaction.
> On the other hand, the DGT core is also thermionic. DGT turns the reaction
> off and on to produce a pulsed heat source where heat generation is
> averaged over a period of time.
>
> Because the reaction mechanism is no longer thermionic, there is no
> coolant involved, electric control alone can regulate the reaction in the
> E-Cat core. In the new solid state E-Cat design,a steady flow of input
> electric current results in a steady level of direct output of heat
> production.
> The elimination of thermionic control is major progress made possible by
> the design of the solid state E-Cat, IMHO.
>
> Cheers:   Axil
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
>
>> I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of
>> 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said
>> the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water
>> only just boiled. Now he claims the core is  stable at 600C but he is
>> not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or
>> puffery?
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson 
>> wrote:
>>  > Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi
>> ECAT can
>> > operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable.  This
>> is a
>> > remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof
>> will
>> > be delivered soon.
>> > The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the
>> > temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that
>> appears
>> > to be under control.  To operate in such a manner suggests that the
>> > mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of
>> > temperature of the device.  Actually it might imply that now there is a
>> form
>> > of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy
>> > generation process once a threshold temperature is reached.
>> > I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the
>> > output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from
>> the
>> > strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to
>> contend
>> > with.   Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the
>> > reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations.
>> > There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and
>> > variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices.  Perhaps Rossi has
>> > found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an
>> > electrical signal that work together as a system.  Time will reveal if
>> all
>> > or any of this is true.
>> > Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the
>> > Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control
>> > handle.  Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner
>> associated
>> > with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative
>> > feedback were dominate?
>> > I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have
>> been
>> > outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say
>> something
>> > remarkable but then not follow up with the goods.  Perhaps this time we
>> will
>> > see the results that we so much anticipate.
>> > Dave
>> >
>>
>>
>


Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-06 Thread David Roberson

This new information is the major reason for my post.  The control is now far 
superior if the recent reports are accurate.  

The actual operating temperature of the core internally is not different unless 
it can now be elevated without danger of thermal run away, and if the process 
is totally under control of something as simple as an electric current then he 
has a much improved device.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 4:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations


In the old style E-Cat core, the flow of coolant water was the way the E-Cat 
heat production process was controlled. Water flow was increased to retard the 
reaction, and conversely water flow was retarded to increase the reaction. 
On the other hand, the DGT core is also thermionic. DGT turns the reaction off 
and on to produce a pulsed heat source where heat generation is averaged over a 
period of time.
 
Because the reaction mechanism is no longer thermionic, there is no coolant 
involved, electric control alone can regulate the reaction in the E-Cat core. 
In the new solid state E-Cat design,a steady flow of input electric current 
results in a steady level of direct output of heat production.
The elimination of thermionic control is major progress made possible by the 
design of the solid state E-Cat, IMHO. 

Cheers:   Axil



 
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of
600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said
the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water
only just boiled. Now he claims the core is  stable at 600C but he is
not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or
puffery?

Harry


On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


> Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can
> operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable.  This is a
> remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will
> be delivered soon.
> The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the
> temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears
> to be under control.  To operate in such a manner suggests that the
> mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of
> temperature of the device.  Actually it might imply that now there is a form
> of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy
> generation process once a threshold temperature is reached.
> I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the
> output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the
> strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend
> with.   Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the
> reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations.
> There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and
> variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices.  Perhaps Rossi has
> found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an
> electrical signal that work together as a system.  Time will reveal if all
> or any of this is true.
> Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the
> Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control
> handle.  Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated
> with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative
> feedback were dominate?
> I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been
> outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something
> remarkable but then not follow up with the goods.  Perhaps this time we will
> see the results that we so much anticipate.
> Dave
>







Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-06 Thread Axil Axil
In the old style E-Cat core, the flow of coolant water was the way the
E-Cat heat production process was controlled. Water flow was increased to
retard the reaction, and conversely water flow was retarded to increase the
reaction.

On the other hand, the DGT core is also thermionic. DGT turns the reaction
off and on to produce a pulsed heat source where heat generation is
averaged over a period of time.

Because the reaction mechanism is no longer thermionic, there is no coolant
involved, electric control alone can regulate the reaction in the E-Cat
core. In the new solid state E-Cat design,a steady flow of input electric
current results in a steady level of direct output of heat production.

The elimination of thermionic control is major progress made possible by
the design of the solid state E-Cat, IMHO.


Cheers:   Axil





On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of
> 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said
> the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water
> only just boiled. Now he claims the core is  stable at 600C but he is
> not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or
> puffery?
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
> > Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT
> can
> > operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable.  This
> is a
> > remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof
> will
> > be delivered soon.
> > The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the
> > temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that
> appears
> > to be under control.  To operate in such a manner suggests that the
> > mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of
> > temperature of the device.  Actually it might imply that now there is a
> form
> > of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy
> > generation process once a threshold temperature is reached.
> > I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the
> > output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from
> the
> > strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to
> contend
> > with.   Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the
> > reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations.
> > There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and
> > variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices.  Perhaps Rossi has
> > found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an
> > electrical signal that work together as a system.  Time will reveal if
> all
> > or any of this is true.
> > Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the
> > Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control
> > handle.  Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner
> associated
> > with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative
> > feedback were dominate?
> > I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have
> been
> > outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say
> something
> > remarkable but then not follow up with the goods.  Perhaps this time we
> will
> > see the results that we so much anticipate.
> > Dave
> >
>
>


Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-06 Thread Harry Veeder
I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of
600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said
the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water
only just boiled. Now he claims the core is  stable at 600C but he is
not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or
puffery?

Harry

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
> Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can
> operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable.  This is a
> remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will
> be delivered soon.
> The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the
> temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears
> to be under control.  To operate in such a manner suggests that the
> mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of
> temperature of the device.  Actually it might imply that now there is a form
> of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy
> generation process once a threshold temperature is reached.
> I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the
> output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the
> strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend
> with.   Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the
> reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations.
> There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and
> variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices.  Perhaps Rossi has
> found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an
> electrical signal that work together as a system.  Time will reveal if all
> or any of this is true.
> Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the
> Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control
> handle.  Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated
> with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative
> feedback were dominate?
> I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been
> outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something
> remarkable but then not follow up with the goods.  Perhaps this time we will
> see the results that we so much anticipate.
> Dave
>



Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations

2012-07-06 Thread Axil Axil
http://pesn.com/2012/06/30/9602121_Solid_State_E-Cat/



The New Solid State E-Cat





It is my considered opinion, the new E-Cat Reactor Core is now under
precise electric control.

Cheers:Axil


On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT
> can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable.  This
> is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof
> will be delivered soon.
> The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the
> temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that
> appears to be under control.  To operate in such a manner suggests that
> the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of
> temperature of the device.  Actually it might imply that now there is a
> form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy
> generation process once a threshold temperature is reached.
> I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the
> output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the
> strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to
> contend with.   Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to
> control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature
> degradations.  There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon
> nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices.  Perhaps
> Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control
> and an electrical signal that work together as a system.  Time will
> reveal if all or any of this is true.
> Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the
> Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control
> handle.  Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner
> associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if
> negative feedback were dominate?
> I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have
> been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say
> something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods.  Perhaps this
> time we will see the results that we so much anticipate.
> Dave
>
>