Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Abd ul-Rahman: » I have seen no peer-reviewed criticisms that manage to impeach the *correlation* of heat with helium.» If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to observed heat. Therefore there is only one conclusion to make, that we have no idea what is going on there and we have no way to deduce the cause for the FPE. Not in a matter of degree that would differentiate it from Ni-H cold fusion. As causality is not yet established and understood, DDSLA is the correct approach imo. And FPE refers into cold fusion heat anomaly in general. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Jouni Valkonen wrote: If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to observed heat. You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right what they should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles or McKubre. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
How's that? According to what theory? On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:01, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen wrote: If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to observed heat. You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right what they should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles or McKubre. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Dec 26, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: However, in open cells, the oxygen leaves the cell as it is generated, and in closed cells, excess oxygen is still vented, my understanding (otherwise the pressure would rise very high, as oxygen isn't loaded into palladium. Some of the oxygen combines with deuterium that bubbles up, in a closed cell, at the recombiner, but the amount of deuterium in a fully loaded piece of palladium is phenomenal. Catalytic recombiners theoretically, and in some cases practically, can work and have worked indefinitely. The problem is murphy's law. If water gets on some part of the the recombining catalyst surface then that part of the surface does not work. Explosions still can occur, even from combiners located remotely from the sealed cell. Flashback preventers fail. Operating closed electrolytic cells is very dangerous. Operating high pressure electrolytic cells is even more dangerous. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 01:03 AM 12/27/2011, Rich Murray wrote: Hi Abd Lomax, I'm glad to see you posting a lot now, and expressing strong doubts about Rossi. Are you continuing to develop your low cost tiny CF kits for electrolytic codeposition of Pd in deuterium heavy water electrolyte, using plastic to record the impacts of any generated neutrons, according to the SPAWAR paradigm? Well, since you ask. I have preliminary results from one cell run. Unfortunately, this cell was run in a basement, and it's looking like radon levels may have been high, or else problems in developing the SSNTDs caused massive damage. I've only glanced at some detector images so far. However, the electrolysis went well, the palladium deposition looked good, about what I'd expect. The biggest problem with this class of experiment is that only one product is directly sought. The expected levels of heat would be, I think, too low to see a reliable heat signal, so neutron evidence would be all there is. I need to fabricate more cells and run them myself and I think my partner will want to do it again.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 01:35 AM 12/27/2011, Charles Hope wrote: On Dec 26, 2011, at 22:10, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Then there is that pesky Coulomb barrier. What I found, though, was that there was ample opinion among quantum physicists that it was possible that the unexplored conditions of condensed matter just might provide some pathway around that, some kind of tunneling or alternate reaction. Recent work has actually predicted fusion from a physical arrangement of deuterium that *might* be present, quite rarely, in highly loaded PdD. That's using, apparently, standard quantum mechanics, but that theory is as yet unverified. Oh? Citation, please? Akito Takahashi, multiple publications, going back into the early 1990s. For example, see Study on 4D/Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate Condensation Motion by Non-Linear Langevin Equation, Akito Takahashi and Norio Yabuuchi, in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, ed Marwan and Krivit, American Chemical Society and Oxford University Press, 2008. See also the Storms review, which mentions this work, Status of cold fusion (2010), Naturwissenschaften, October 2010. For abstract, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838756, for a preprint, see http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf As to the opinion of quantum physicists on the possibility of there being unknown effects in the solid state, there was a recent revision of a textbook on solid state nuclear models, and it has a section on LENR, and it turns out that the author had written something pointing to the lack of impossibility back around 1990. I went around and around all this on Wikipedia. Bottom line: don't bother me with facts, I'm a grad student and I know quantum physics, and it says it's impossible. Of course, it doesn't.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
It is not theory, it is experimental result. Go to: http://www.lenr-canr.org/ and enter Miles helium and McKubre helium. On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Charles Hope wrote: How's that? According to what theory? On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:01, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen wrote: If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to observed heat. You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right what they should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles or McKubre. - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
I'm reading his papers and I don't understand one thing: 1.What triggers the 4D/TSC? It looks like an ordinary configuration of D in palladium... 2.Why does he use a value that is so precise 1.4007fs to the 4D/TSC reach the minimum state. His calculations are approximations and even if they weren't the data used in the initial state like, proton mass, electron mass, bohr radius, have less precision. It sounds odd for an experienced scientist to do these things. 2011/12/27 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 01:35 AM 12/27/2011, Charles Hope wrote: On Dec 26, 2011, at 22:10, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Then there is that pesky Coulomb barrier. What I found, though, was that there was ample opinion among quantum physicists that it was possible that the unexplored conditions of condensed matter just might provide some pathway around that, some kind of tunneling or alternate reaction. Recent work has actually predicted fusion from a physical arrangement of deuterium that *might* be present, quite rarely, in highly loaded PdD. That's using, apparently, standard quantum mechanics, but that theory is as yet unverified. Oh? Citation, please? Akito Takahashi, multiple publications, going back into the early 1990s. For example, see Study on 4D/Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate Condensation Motion by Non-Linear Langevin Equation, Akito Takahashi and Norio Yabuuchi, in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, ed Marwan and Krivit, American Chemical Society and Oxford University Press, 2008. See also the Storms review, which mentions this work, Status of cold fusion (2010), Naturwissenschaften, October 2010. For abstract, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/**pubmed/20838756http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838756, for a preprint, see http://www.lenr-canr.org/** acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdfhttp://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf As to the opinion of quantum physicists on the possibility of there being unknown effects in the solid state, there was a recent revision of a textbook on solid state nuclear models, and it has a section on LENR, and it turns out that the author had written something pointing to the lack of impossibility back around 1990. I went around and around all this on Wikipedia. Bottom line: don't bother me with facts, I'm a grad student and I know quantum physics, and it says it's impossible. Of course, it doesn't. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 03:53 AM 12/27/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Abd ul-Rahman: » I have seen no peer-reviewed criticisms that manage to impeach the *correlation* of heat with helium.» If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to observed heat. This is totally incorrect. Helium is generally found at roughly half that expected from the heat, in most experiments, and the difference is mostly ascribed to helium being hidden in the metal lattice. I.e., imagine that helium is being formed at or near the surface, and it is formed with some energy. Half the helium will have a vector inward to the lattice, and so will be buried, effectively ion-implanted, and it can't move easily. In one experiment at SRI, repeated flushing of the material with deuterium was done, as I understand, and they were able to recover, they claimed, most of the helium. From all the evidence, Storms estimates 25+/- 5 MeV/He-4 as the production Q value, compared to the theoretical value of 23.8 MeV for any kind of deuterium fusion to helium. Krivit contests all this, but often with a lack of understanding of the issues. Capturing all the helium is quite difficult, apparently. The energy is known to much higher accuracy, generally. In the first work, Miles, the helium was only measured to one significant digit, or even to the order of magnitude. That was quite enough to show clear correlation. Therefore there is only one conclusion to make, that we have no idea what is going on there and we have no way to deduce the cause for the FPE. Not in a matter of degree that would differentiate it from Ni-H cold fusion. As causality is not yet established and understood, DDSLA is the correct approach imo. And FPE refers into cold fusion heat anomaly in general. Let's just say we don't use the term that way. DDSLA? I don't get the reference.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
McKubre now acknowledges his 23.8 KeV was in error. Harry On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: It is not theory, it is experimental result. Go to: http://www.lenr-canr.org/ and enter Miles helium and McKubre helium. On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Charles Hope wrote: How's that? According to what theory? On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:01, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen wrote: If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to observed heat. You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right what they should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles or McKubre. - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
After some calculations, I think it is better to use the MPG-D751. See below. On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: The 2.5 x 2.5 mm device has a max power output of approx 0.8 mW at 10 deg K differential. Assuming 1 Watt excess with a COP 5 yields 200 mW input. Would need around 300 of the MPG-D615 devices with fitted finned heat sinks to each device's COLD side to get good thermal transfer into the air. Could be doable with 75 devices per finned heat sink assembly per side of a square container. This is exactly the set up I had in mind. Optimal load resistance could be a issue. Something to look at in the future. Using the data in http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJcoldfusion.pdf(slide 20), one can estimate that the average voltage required in a PdD cell is about 5,7W / 1.5A = 3.8V (see also slide 11). One MPG-D751 can provide 1.2V at about 1mA with 10 deg K differential (see http://www.micropelt.com/down/datasheet_mpg_d651_d751.pdf voltage x current graph), i.e., 1.2mW. Using the circuit shown in http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM2621.html#Overview we can elevate that to 3.8V. Assuming an efficience of 50% (it should be better than that, see http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm2621.pdf), we have 0.6mW per MPG-D751. To achieve 5.7W, we have to put 5.7W / 0.6mW = 9,500 MPG-D751 in parallel (and use at least 2 LM2621 circuits). These will occupy about 9,500 x 4.248mm * 3.364mm = 135,758mm2. This is a square of ~368mm on each side. Using a rectangular recipient and putting these 9,500 units on its 4 lateral sides, we have a minimum lateral side size of 184mm x 184mm, or ~18cm x ~18cm. If I did the math correctly, it is doable. But we need a COP of 20 or more (not considering peak power eventualy needed during reaction startup and/or control). Cheers, Alberto. AG On 12/27/2011 2:42 PM, Alberto De Souza wrote: I'm a new member of the list, but I'm reading the posts since January. I'm addicted... If we have a large COP (10-100), I believe we can use thin film thermogenerators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Thermoelectricityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectricity) such as these http://www.micropelt.com/down/**datasheet_mpg_d651_d751.pdfhttp://www.micropelt.com/down/datasheet_mpg_d651_d751.pdfto make a self sustain wet cell... We can put thousands of those around a wet cell. They produce useful power with as little as 10 degrees Celsius (see datasheet). Cheers, Alberto.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Alberto De Souza alberto.investi...@gmail.com wrote: I'm a new member of the list, but I'm reading the posts since January. I'm addicted... If we have a large COP (10-100), I believe we can use thin film thermogenerators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectricity) such as these http://www.micropelt.com/down/datasheet_mpg_d651_d751.pdf to make a self sustain wet cell... We can put thousands of those around a wet cell. They produce useful power with as little as 10 degrees Celsius (see datasheet). Interesting gadgets. With proper placement and calibration, they'd convert any appropriately designed cell into an envelope calorimeter similar to the classical Seebeck Effect calorimeters (SEC's). To overstate the obvious, you would calibrate with an electrical heater and a precision power supply.Of course, the devices would have to have repeatable, consistent electrical output for the same heat input -- they'd have to be stable.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
After thinking a little bit about the calculations I did (see below) and considering what I have learned from this year reading vortex, I came to the conclusion that the engineering approach proposed by Aussie Guy (and also Rossi) is the best approach forward in the LERN field... If one manages to show a LERN device that runs for days on its own and that is able to light a single small light (a LED would suffice) during its operation, we will see proper resources employed to do good research on LERN all over the World. This will result in the production of devices that will really change the way we live. Aussie Guy: please build your kits. They will sell a lot. Cheers, Alberto. On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Alberto De Souza alberto.investi...@gmail.com wrote: After some calculations, I think it is better to use the MPG-D751. See below. On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: The 2.5 x 2.5 mm device has a max power output of approx 0.8 mW at 10 deg K differential. Assuming 1 Watt excess with a COP 5 yields 200 mW input. Would need around 300 of the MPG-D615 devices with fitted finned heat sinks to each device's COLD side to get good thermal transfer into the air. Could be doable with 75 devices per finned heat sink assembly per side of a square container. This is exactly the set up I had in mind. Optimal load resistance could be a issue. Something to look at in the future. Using the data in http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJcoldfusion.pdf(slide 20), one can estimate that the average voltage required in a PdD cell is about 5,7W / 1.5A = 3.8V (see also slide 11). One MPG-D751 can provide 1.2V at about 1mA with 10 deg K differential (see http://www.micropelt.com/down/datasheet_mpg_d651_d751.pdf voltage x current graph), i.e., 1.2mW. Using the circuit shown in http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM2621.html#Overview we can elevate that to 3.8V. Assuming an efficience of 50% (it should be better than that, see http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm2621.pdf), we have 0.6mW per MPG-D751. To achieve 5.7W, we have to put 5.7W / 0.6mW = 9,500 MPG-D751 in parallel (and use at least 2 LM2621 circuits). These will occupy about 9,500 x 4.248mm * 3.364mm = 135,758mm2. This is a square of ~368mm on each side. Using a rectangular recipient and putting these 9,500 units on its 4 lateral sides, we have a minimum lateral side size of 184mm x 184mm, or ~18cm x ~18cm. If I did the math correctly, it is doable. But we need a COP of 20 or more (not considering peak power eventualy needed during reaction startup and/or control). Cheers, Alberto.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: SNIPIt's been called fusion confusion. Look, Aussie Guy is anonymous, what he writes is next to meaningless. Don't mix this up with the huge corpus of work from hundreds of scientists around the world. Hi Abd, Thanks for the citations and suggestions. I will look into them in the future. I am hopeful that the work you describe is valid and will lead to something useful. To restate, my interest here is limited. I find it amazing and amusing that anyone believes Rossi and Defkalion on the strength of what they have done (and not done) thus far. So I follow their story, hoping it will get better but finding out it keeps getting worse. And if Aussie Guy really has cells that run continuously and indefinitely at a COP of 5x over a 1 Watt input, I'd find that interesting as well. I sort of doubt that he has such cells and that they will work the way he hopes. I am also amused by his claim that he is going to get an E-cat to test. I have no idea why he believes that given that nobody else in the world has said they have. In summary, I am interested in robust, rather large claims to cold fusion/LENR demonstrations. All the rest I've seen so far and all the theory, I'd rather let other people investigate. I am competent to judge the quality and reliability of most types of thermal and electrical power measurements and I have a sensitive nose for sniffing out scam possibilities. I don't really know the details of nuclear physics. So, apart from than that which I mentioned, I leave it to others. As Clint Eastwood's character once said, a person has to know their limitations. I have never claimed that cold fusion/LENR does not exist or does not work. All I claim is that I don't know and that some of the papers that others have suggested have been obscurely written and that for others, knowledgeable people have raised counter explanations and objections to the findings. I think that remains true. In any case, I am not interested in arguing that. I think the current evidence suggests that Rossi and Defkalion *could* both be lying and scamming (not necessarily that they are) and I am quite prepared to argue about that as I am sure you know!
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
If the helium levels are what they should be compared to the heat, that assumes some theory that correlates them. Which theory is that? On Dec 27, 2011, at 12:24, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: It is not theory, it is experimental result. Go to: http://www.lenr-canr.org/ and enter Miles helium and McKubre helium. On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Charles Hope wrote: How's that? According to what theory? On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:01, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen wrote: If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to observed heat. You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right what they should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles or McKubre. - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: If the helium levels are what they should be compared to the heat, that assumes some theory that correlates them. Which theory is that? Not a theory. It is an observation that deuterium is converted to helium to produce heat in the same ratio as plasma fusion does. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On 11-12-26 05:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Cells running heat after death have closed the loop. Apart from them, no laboratory scale device can produce electricity.The implication is clear. The cells can produce electricity. If that isn't what you meant, just say so. Obviously I mean they produce heat in self sustaining mode. You have read nothing and you know nothing so you failed to understand that. You also fail to understand what anyone with elementary knowledge will know: any device which produces heat can be used to produce electricity with thermoelectric devices. Arata ran a small motor with one heated by a self-sustaining gas-loaded cell. Jed, could you possibly give a URL for the paper (if Arata published one and if it's been uploaded anywhere)? The lenr-canr search tools are not the best, IMHO, and using Google in a general web search to find a particular paper is a time consuming, generally frustrating experience. When you post a link, it's *not* just for the benefit of MY. A lot of us on this list, who are *not* hostile to anything involving CF (as long as it doesn't include Rossi as a team member), would love to read the papers associated with your references. But I, for one, don't enjoy digging fruitlessly in lenr-canr.org for some paper which I typically don't end up finding anyway ... and which you very probably could have found in a few seconds. All Seebeck calorimeters produce electricity, so any self-sustaining device inside of one is acting as electric generator, roughly on the scale of the plutonium-powered pacemakers of the 1970s. (Before you lash out with snide comments about how plutonium-powered pacemakers never existed, I suggest you look them up.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Excuse me. I didn't realize your level of understanding. Mass and energy are related by E = m c^2. If the inputs and outputs have a mass difference, then that mass is converted to energy, in kinetic form, radiant form, or both. This is the basis of most all nuclear reaction energy calculations, and the energy calculations I provided for many hundreds of feasible (though most of them improbable) reactions here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt Note the deuterium reactions here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptC By this investigation I cam up with an entirely new form of LENR, namely nuclear catalytic action, exemplified by the many reactions in Report C. These are reactions of the form: X + 2 D* -- X + 4He + 23.847 MeV The conventional D+D fusion reaction, using mass differences, is: D + D -- 4He + 23.847 MeV The heavy lattice atoms are closer to absorbed hydrogen than hydrogen in adjacent lattices. The tunneling probability of a deflated hydrogen nucleus to the vicinity of a heavy nucleus is higher than to an adjacent lattice site. If immediate strong reaction does not occur, as is the case for heavy nuclei where it is not energetically feasible, then the second catalytic action, producing a helium nucleus (alpha particle) is feasible. This kind of reaction might be engineered to produce a high rate of energy production using the right kind of lattice with deuterium. In any case, as you can see, the mass deficit is 23.847 MeV/c for D+D -- 4He, no matter by what pathway this occurs. On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Charles Hope wrote: If the helium levels are what they should be compared to the heat, that assumes some theory that correlates them. Which theory is that? On Dec 27, 2011, at 12:24, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: It is not theory, it is experimental result. Go to: http://www.lenr-canr.org/ and enter Miles helium and McKubre helium. On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Charles Hope wrote: How's that? According to what theory? On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:01, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen wrote: If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to observed heat. You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right what they should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles or McKubre. - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On 11-12-26 10:24 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 05:31 PM 12/26/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Arata ran a small motor with one heated by a self-sustaining gas-loaded cell. Cool! Did anyone verify this or replicate it? And how long did it run and at what output level? Mary! You can find this stuff yourself. Arata cells generate a low level of heat, without any input, and the experimental runs I've seen end at 3000 minutes, still cranking out the heat. OK, you've seen papers, please post a link! Not for MY: For the rest of us. Again, call me lazy, but I don't want to waste a lot of time digging through Lenr-Canr just to come up with what I'll be told later was the wrong paper.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
I wrote: The heavy lattice atoms are closer to absorbed hydrogen than hydrogen in adjacent lattices. That should say: Absorbed hydrogen nuclei are closer to adjacent heavy lattice atom nuclei than to hydrogen nuclei in adjacent lattice sites. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Arata ran a small motor with one heated by a self-sustaining gas-loaded cell. Jed, could you possibly give a URL for the paper (if Arata published one and if it's been uploaded anywhere)? I do not think he ever published that. It was just something he did during his demonstration in 2008. It is not important. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On 11-12-26 11:12 PM, Alberto De Souza wrote: I'm a new member of the list, but I'm reading the posts since January. I'm addicted... If we have a large COP (10-100), I believe we can use thin film thermogenerators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectricity) such as these http://www.micropelt.com/down/datasheet_mpg_d651_d751.pdf to make a self sustain wet cell... We can put thousands of those around a wet cell. They produce useful power with as little as 10 degrees Celsius (see datasheet). With a 10 degree rise, operating at room temperature, you'd need a COP of around 30 to make the cell self sustain, if you were using an ideal thermoelectric generator and you were capturing all the generated heat. Using a real world generator and real world heat transfer mechanisms, the COP would need to be substantially higher than that. 10 degrees over room temperature gives you about 3.5% conversion efficiency, in the best possible ideal case. If you run the cell hotter and continue to get a 10 degree temp boost out of it, the 10 degree rise will be smaller (proportionately speaking), and you get even worse efficiency as a result. Unfortunately real-world PdD cells don't operate with a COP anywhere near 30. So, no, you can't do what you're proposing.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: The conventional D+D fusion reaction, using mass differences, is: D + D -- 4He + 23.847 MeV OK, I get it. Am I correct that the conventional theory says this reaction doesn't really occur (it's either 3He + n, or 3H + H), or if it did somehow, the energy would be emitted as gamma ray, and not as heat?
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 01:35 AM 12/27/2011, Charles Hope wrote: On Dec 26, 2011, at 22:10, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Then there is that pesky Coulomb barrier. What I found, though, was that there was ample opinion among quantum physicists that it was possible that the unexplored conditions of condensed matter just might provide some pathway around that, some kind of tunneling or alternate reaction. Recent work has actually predicted fusion from a physical arrangement of deuterium that *might* be present, quite rarely, in highly loaded PdD. That's using, apparently, standard quantum mechanics, but that theory is as yet unverified. Oh? Citation, please? Akito Takahashi, multiple publications, going back into the early 1990s. For example, see Study on 4D/Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate Condensation Motion by Non-Linear Langevin Equation, Akito Takahashi and Norio Yabuuchi, in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, ed Marwan and Krivit, American Chemical Society and Oxford University Press, 2008. See also the Storms review, which mentions this work, Status of cold fusion (2010), Naturwissenschaften, October 2010. For abstract, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/**pubmed/20838756http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838756, for a preprint, see http://www.lenr-canr.org/** acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdfhttp://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf Thank you, I will have a look at these papers. As to the opinion of quantum physicists on the possibility of there being unknown effects in the solid state, there was a recent revision of a textbook on solid state nuclear models, and it has a section on LENR, and it turns out that the author had written something pointing to the lack of impossibility back around 1990. I don't quite follow. Do you mean that he first wrote that it was not impossible, and then was forced to delete the statement?
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Dec 27, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The conventional D+D fusion reaction, using mass differences, is: D + D -- 4He + 23.847 MeV OK, I get it. Am I correct that the conventional theory says this reaction doesn't really occur (it's either 3He + n, or 3H + H), or if it did somehow, the energy would be emitted as gamma ray, and not as heat? As noted on page 9 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf the standard branching ratios are: D + D -- T(1.01 MeV) + p(3.03 MeV) (4.03 MeV, 50%) D + D -- 3He(0.82 MeV) + n(2.45 MeV) (3.27 MeV, 50%) D + D -- 4He( 76 keV) + gamma (23.8 MeV) (23.9 MeV, 1x10-6) The D+D -- 4He happens about 1 time in a million. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 01:07 PM 12/27/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: SNIPIt's been called fusion confusion. Look, Aussie Guy is anonymous, what he writes is next to meaningless. Don't mix this up with the huge corpus of work from hundreds of scientists around the world. Hi Abd, Thanks for the citations and suggestions. I will look into them in the future. I am hopeful that the work you describe is valid and will lead to something useful. To restate, my interest here is limited. I find it amazing and amusing that anyone believes Rossi and Defkalion on the strength of what they have done (and not done) thus far. I don't believe them. I finally concluded that Occam's Razor was that Rossi was deliberately deceptive. That is not a proof, and I'm not, for example, aware of anything illegal from him, specifically. However, I don't know what representations he has made to others, involved in binding contracts. Puffery and even straight-out lying are not necessarily illegal, a lot of people don't understand that. Fraud is illegal, but there must be someone actually defrauded, not merely fooled. So I follow their story, hoping it will get better but finding out it keeps getting worse. I've seen no sign of improvement since early this year. It's amazing how badly these demonstrations could be run. I concluded that Rossi's goal might very well be to (1) attract attention, while (2) appearing to be a fraud. As Jed knows, there could be some sane reasons for him to do that. Or at least not totally insane. And if Aussie Guy really has cells that run continuously and indefinitely at a COP of 5x over a 1 Watt input, I'd find that interesting as well. It's just a claim, and it might be naive, we know nothing about Aussie Guy except that he doesn't seem particularly familiar with the field of LENR. I sort of doubt that he has such cells and that they will work the way he hopes. I am also amused by his claim that he is going to get an E-cat to test. I have no idea why he believes that given that nobody else in the world has said they have. We can't tell. He might have a contractual commitment, or he might merely be making optimistic statements. People do that, you know. In summary, I am interested in robust, rather large claims to cold fusion/LENR demonstrations. Rossi claims that, but that was not, and cannot be considered to be, the state of the science. There is clear evidence that LENR is possible, enough that it is quite foolish for it to be unfunded, particularly given the horrendously poor showing, so far, through hot fusion approaches. I've opined that it's possible this will never be commercially practical, but that's why we do pure science. You can't know till you know! The position of the particle physicists in 1989-1990 was pretty sad. It was basically, This is impossible because we cannot understand how this could possibly work. Those chemists don't understand nuclear physics. It must be a mistake. It's one of the basic bonehead mistakes to make in science, the kind of thing Feynman warned about. Dismissing experimental evidence on purely theoretical grounds is generally a Bad Idea. Here is what I suggest taking home, but if you really want to know this independently of my suggestion, you'll need to do a *lot* of reading. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions are possible, and they do include fusion, i.e., the conversion of deuterium to helium, with the release of enormous energy *per reaction.* However, we are -- unless Rossi or other independent approaches pan out -- far from being able to reliably set up the reaction conditions so that the energy is robust and predictable, what you want to see. It took twenty years of development of the state of the art to come to the point where someone who is willing to put in the time and money, to learn how to do it, can see the FPHE. Many many early replication attempts failed, for reasons that are now fairly well known. What puzzled many was that what seemed to be *the very same conditions* would sometimes produce the result and sometimes not. Turns out that what may seem to be the same isn't necessarily the same. I've become fond of the graph published by SRI for P13/14. Unfortunately, they did not publish what needed to be published, for what they show is the chimera of cold fusion, the appearance of a very clear, unmistakeable heat signal. That graph shows excess heat from two cells operated in series, same current through each, as a current excursion in the deuterium cell produces a tracking excess heat signal, but the same excursion in a hydrogen cell produces only more noise. The signal is very well elevated above the noise, it's quite clear. What people don't see is that the same pair of cells was put through the same protocol three times, and the excess heat signal only appeared the
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 03:28 PM 12/27/2011, Charles Hope wrote: If the helium levels are what they should be compared to the heat, that assumes some theory that correlates them. Which theory is that? This is an experimental observation, and what you are asking was stated. Helium is produced in PdD cells, when the FPHE effect is observed and heat is measured, and helium is collected and measured, at what Storms estimates as 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4. If deuterium is converted to helium, the energy released is 23.8 MeV/He-4. So the hypothesis here would be that the reaction is somehow converting deuterium into helium. For this purpose it is not necessary to know what the reaction is, as long as there are no other energy sinks. (For example, energy lost to neutrino emission.) Krivit has criticised the work that was the basis for Storms' estimate, mostly over details of little consequence. Regardless, when Miles reported energy/He-4 that was within an order of magnitude of the value expected for deuterium fusion, Huizenga, who might be considered the leader of the skeptics, he did more to torpedo cold fusion in the early days than anyone else, as co-chair of the 1989 ERAB panel, thought the Miles work was astonishing, solving a major riddle of cold fusion (the ash!), but he then added his expecation that Miles would not be confirmed. After all, there were no gamma rays, which would certainly be expected from d + d - He-4. He was obviously assuming that if there was a reaction, it would be straight, normal d+d fusion. Obviously, it isn't. But *any reaction that converts deuterium to helium* will produce that much energy. This is not a proof, but reactions that produce that much energy per helium nuclear product are rare. I'm not aware of any. Of course, this is indeed an unknown nuclear reaction, so ... we don't know. Just as an example of a different reaction that would produce the same energy, though, Takahashi's Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate motion causes, in theory, collapse and fusion of four deuterons to form a single excited Be-8 nucleus. What happens then is unclear. Normally, Be-8 has a very short lifetime, on the order of a femtosecond, decaying into two helium nuclei plus 47.6 MeV. The magic number, 23.8 MeV/He-4. No gamma would be expected. However, still no cigar, Takahashi hasn't earned his Nobel yet, perhaps. If the energy appears in the helium nuclei, if they were 23.8 MeV each, as kinetic energy, there would observable effects that are not observed. Those would be very hot alpha particles, they would Do Stuff, to use the technical term. To give an idea of why Something Completely Different might happen, that Be-8 is formed inside of a Bose-Einstein Condensate, and we have no idea what to expect as the behavior of a highly unstable radioisotope that forms inside a BEC. One possibility that looms is that the energy would be distributed among all the consituents of the BEC, which, for starters, might be larger than four deuterons. The deuterium in the BEC is molecular deterium, possibly. It includes the electrons. They might carry away quite a bit of the energy. And studying this stuff, experimentally, is apparently very, very difficult. Especially without funding!
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 05:13 PM 12/27/2011, Charles HOPE wrote: As to the opinion of quantum physicists on the possibility of there being unknown effects in the solid state, there was a recent revision of a textbook on solid state nuclear models, and it has a section on LENR, and it turns out that the author had written something pointing to the lack of impossibility back around 1990. I don't quite follow. Do you mean that he first wrote that it was not impossible, and then was forced to delete the statement? No. He wrote sometime around 1990 that LENR could not be considered impossible, we simply didn't know enough about the complexities of the solid state. He recently produced an updated edition of his textbook on nuclear models that covers LENR as a reality. Published as a major physics textbook by a major publisher, Springer? I forget.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Hello Mary Yugo, I've looked at all of your posts for months, and appreciate your candor, spunk, restraint, keenness, patience and persistence -- it seems that the desire for a major game changing breakthrough since 1989 leads to premature big gambles that so far always fail -- so the whole enterprise develops a traumatic history with many cycles of flash and fizzle for each new device -- so there isn't support for gradual basic research that establishes tiny beachheads, one after another -- the research that led to the game changing discovery of uranium fission in early 1939 was fairly routine, straightforward simple nuclear chemistry, and it took months before the correct paradigm was found -- likewise the evolution of transistor technology after 1948 depended on advances in growing extremely pure crystals of germanium and silicon via zone refining, and finding and eliminating nano level impurities that poisoned the electronic properties of n and p conducting regions -- very painstaking, detailed baroque recipe work that usually was trial and error -- however, the evolving frontier of science and technology is a forever evolving and expanding complex fractal horizon -- so if CF is possible, someday it will unpredictably show up in some arcane corner in the fractal -- perhaps in water tree corrosion in dense polyethylene insulation in high voltage power cables? Merry Christmas and a vigorous New Year! Rich
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
I'm going through Takahashi this week. How could a BEC exist at room temperature? On Dec 27, 2011, at 22:41, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Bose-Einstein Condensate
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
That is the plan. With the help of Jed's archives, other private emails, the loan cell supplier and our local uni, we are confident to produce a simple FPE demo device that can be supplied to a wide market. AG On 12/26/2011 5:13 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: ...The history of demo cells in CF is very complex and cannot be called a series of triumphs; you have to change this.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
I take you do not read what I have written on this subject? We were ready to do a deal for the 1 MW thermal plant but Rossi suggested we wait as he is not ready to sell us a high temp thermal oil 1 MW E-Cat plant. Why? Because the plant is still in RD and the necessary technical specifications are not yet available. Without the tech specs we can't construct a purchase order with performance specs that need to be met before we part with our money. Rossi is very conservative and has never attempted to over sell his product. More to the point he says it will do what the specs say it will do and nothing more. I respect him for that conservative stance. I expect what Rossi will offer us is a complete package, including the 330 Ac kW gen set, all tied up with a nicely integrated NI thermal kW and Ac kW control system. That would be nice. When Rossi is ready to offer the system to us, we are ready to evaluate his offering. AG On 12/26/2011 6:17 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: I have allocated $100k to the cell replication project. I was ready to spend $200k to buy a 100 kW E-Cat system. When Rossi is ready to provide the detailed specifications for his 330 Ac kW E-Cat, we will again restart the process to acquire a unit from Leonardo. I'm confused. I thought you already had an iron clad deal with Rossi to buy one of his contraptions with the 100 or so E-cats in a container and were going to add electrical power generators. Is that off now, or what? You wrote about it as if it would happen practically tomorrow. Changed your mind?
RE: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Hi Aussie, I expect what Rossi will offer us is a complete package, including the 330 Ac kW gen set, all tied up with a nicely integrated NI thermal kW and Ac kW control system. That would be nice. When Rossi is ready to offer the system to us, we are ready to evaluate his offering. Do you have a best guestimate as to when you think Rossi might get around to delivering the goods? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
This could be extremely valuable for the field, and profitable for AG. It would be great to bring these to ICCF-17. Measuring ~1 W is not difficult. I recommend a Seebeck calorimeter. It simplifies matters and it has a large s/n ratio compared to other types, in this range of power. At ~10 W or above it does not matter what kind of calorimeter you use. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: I take you do not read what I have written on this subject? I try but sometimes my email client hiccups. Last I remember, you had sealed a deal with Rossi and getting a whatever-watt plant was just around the corner and an absolute certainty. You were going to provide the container and generators. I forgot who was assembling it all but it doesn't matter. Now, you're apparently waiting for specifications of some machine to be delivered in the indefinite future. This is progress? As for the PFE cells, if they make 5 watts from 1 watt or even 1 watt from 200 mW, then there has to be some way to make them self-running for as long as the fuel lasts by recycling output power to the input. And given it's nuclear, the fuel should last a long time and yield a huge amount of energy. Want respect, not mention tons of fame and fortune? Close the loop and make them self running except for (rare) refueling. You'd be the first. That's for sure.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Here's what Rossi wrote today (good old Rossi -- always worth a laugh): 1. Andrea Rossi December 26th, 2011 at 11:39 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563cpage=7#comment-157154 Dear Francesco Fiorenzani: I hope within 2012. We must have a production of 1 million pieces immediately, to put the price at a level to reach these strategic targets: 1- allow everybody to buy it 2- kill the competition Warm Regards, A.R. Surely, there's something in that million pieces for Aussie Guy. Also, by the time ICCF-17 in Korea rolls around next August, I'm sure both Rossi and Defkalion will show robustly and continuously working polished production/agency-approved and licensed machines, right? And credible independently acquired evidence that they work as advertised, right? Because if not, what *possible* excuse could there be by then? What lame rationalizations will be made? Will all the customers still be anonymous for all the million pieces that will be sold? Given what Rossi has said and done thus far, It wouldn't surprise me!
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
MaryYugo Wrote: Want respect, not mention tons of fame and fortune? Close the loop and make them self running except for (rare) refueling. You'd be the first. That's for sure. I wonder why the people AG bought the gadgets from did not close the loop, or why the high school students who made something amazing (supposedly) did not close the loop. Nobody ever closes the loop.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On 2011-12-26 19:23, Mary Yugo wrote: Want respect, not mention tons of fame and fortune? Close the loop and make them self running except for (rare) refueling. You'd be the first. That's for sure. With a small thermal excess power it's not trivial to close the loop in my opinion. It would be better to work on accurate (but not overly complex) calorimetry and to find clear evidence that nuclear reactions are occurring. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: With a small thermal excess power it's not trivial to close the loop in my opinion. Agreed it's not trivial. But I was addressing Aussie Guy who said his devices have a COP of 5 in the range of watts and that they are B grade at that! With a power level measured in watts, and a COP of 5, it should be possible, especially using a grade A device (LOL) to close the loop. Look what's been done with miniaturized Sterling engines, micro motors and generators, and all sorts of other tiny devices. And any strong advocate of cold fusion would want to close the loop more than anything else. It would IMMEDIATELY give the field irrefutable proof of cold fusion (if you ran long enough) because there is no other way to explain away the phenomenon -- none whatever. It would be better to work on accurate (but not overly complex) calorimetry and to find clear evidence that nuclear reactions are occurring. Why not work on both? But at the moment, Aussie Guy has given no clearly defined specifications at all for his grade B PFE devices and their performance other than COP5 and power output in the watts range. That tends to make the story unclear if not suspicious. He can fix at least that part of it easily and at no risk of revealing trade secrets. Let's see if he gives some specifications and maybe from those we can judge how difficult closing the loop may be. So, AG, what's the input power and how is it supplied (in what form and from what)? What's the output power and how was it measured? You did get those data, right? Before you made the claims?
RE: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
MaryYugo Wrote: Want respect, not mention tons of fame and fortune? Close the loop and make them self running except for (rare) refueling. You'd be the first. That's for sure. I wonder why the people AG bought the gadgets from did not close the loop, or why the high school students who made something amazing (supposedly) did not close the loop. Nobody ever closes the loop. I think the majority of the Vort Collective understands the fact that Vorl and MY believe most CF/LENR claims are nothing more than horse manure. I wonder why Vorl simply doesn't state for the record that the inability of high school student to close the loop apparently causes him to doubt CF claims. Maybe if he had done so... But alas, it does not appear to me that Vorl is actually interested in educating himself. Instead, it would seem that Vorl would prefer to express his convictions in the form of an astonishing revelation. It would seem that Vorl is hoping his astonishing revelation will cause gullible CF believers to ponder the folly of their inability to think rationally. For 2012 I think another one of my insignificant little resolutions will be to place Vorl in my kill file, along with the rest of the sarcastic posters, like MY, who really haven't had all that much to contribute in a long while. By all means, feel free to return the favor. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 11:53 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Nobody ever closes the loop. I think the majority of the Vort Collective understands the fact that Vorl and MY believe most CF/LENR claims are nothing more than horse manure. I wonder why Vorl simply doesn't state for the record that the inability of high school student to close the loop apparently causes him to doubt CF claims. Maybe if he had done so... But alas, it does not appear to me that Vorl is actually interested in educating himself. Instead, it would seem that Vorl would prefer to express his convictions in the form of an astonishing revelation. It would seem that Vorl is hoping his astonishing revelation will cause gullible CF believers to ponder the folly of their inability to think rationally. ** ** For 2012 I think another one of my insignificant little resolutions will be to place Vorl in my kill file, along with the rest of the sarcastic posters, like MY, who really haven't had all that much to contribute in a long while. And this sort of post contributes? Using high school student is an old trick of scammers like Bedini and his school girl magnetic motor made from a bicycle wheel, which of course does not work, no matter who makes it. That doesn't mean the research from the high school students was not valid. But it suggests that whatever they did, someone could do vastly more. Try responding to a real argument: if the claim, as Aussie Guy made it, is for a device with a COP of 5 over an input measured in watts, then why not close the loop? What COP would you need? 10? 100? what? Defkalion, by the way, claims 35x.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On 11-12-26 01:51 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-12-26 19:23, Mary Yugo wrote: Want respect, not mention tons of fame and fortune? Close the loop and make them self running except for (rare) refueling. You'd be the first. That's for sure. With a small thermal excess power it's not trivial to close the loop in my opinion. It would be better to work on accurate (but not overly complex) calorimetry and to find clear evidence that nuclear reactions are occurring. The problem all along has been that wet CF cells produce low grade heat: The output is only slightly warmer than the input. Consequently it's almost impossible to do anything useful with it, including close the loop. Wikipedia gives the Carnot efficiency of a heat engine as 1 - (Tc /Th). If the temp rise in the cell which is attributable to the PF Effect is no more than ten degrees (which is probably typical of wet CF cells), then we're looking at a Carnot efficiency of roughly 1 - (283/273), or about 3.5 percent. So, a COP much below 30 will not get you in the door if you want to self power such a cell. A COP of 5 makes such a cell worthless, save as a curiosity. Note that you can heat the whole system up by pumping in more energy, which might seem like a way to get the Carnot efficiency up: Use a room temperature bath as your cold reservoir and heat the cell up to boiling. Such a strategy tends to be self defeating, though, because all the extra energy you need to put in to heat the cell far above ambient sends your COP into the bucket. (This is, of course, one reason Rossi's gadget is such a big noise: It supposedly produces high grade heat, which is easy to use for stuff.)
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Nobody ever closes the loop. That is incorrect. Many people have closed the loop, starting with Fleischmann and Pons. In cold fusion jargon, closing the loop is called running in heat after death mode. Fleischmann once called it fully ignited, borrowing the term from the plasma fusion scientists. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Nobody ever closes the loop. That is incorrect. Many people have closed the loop, starting with Fleischmann and Pons. In cold fusion jargon, closing the loop is called running in heat after death mode. Fleischmann once called it fully ignited, borrowing the term from the plasma fusion scientists. Are you saying the cell runs in that mode indefinitely and at a level which totally rules out (hopefully by several orders of magnitude) anything other than a nuclear effect? If so, that's a paper I'd like to read and a demo I'd like to see. If it won't run indefinitely or at least long enough so that one can calculate the nuclear fuel has been exhausted or largely used up, then it's probably not what I mean by a closed loop.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Nobody ever closes the loop. That is incorrect. Many people have closed the loop, starting with Fleischmann and Pons. In cold fusion jargon, closing the loop is called running in heat after death mode. Fleischmann once called it fully ignited, borrowing the term from the plasma fusion scientists. Why didn't FP, and all the other people who closed the loop, arrange demos, public or private, to interest investors? After 22 years, and all those loop-closing experiments, why do we still not have a Mr. Fusion water heater?
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On 11-12-26 02:57 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: Try responding to a real argument: if the claim, as Aussie Guy made it, is for a device with a COP of 5 over an input measured in watts, then why not close the loop? What COP would you need? 10? 100? what? Defkalion, by the way, claims 35x. As I said elsewhere, it depends on the temperature rise in the cell caused by the PF effect. Depending on how hot the cell operates, a reasonable estimate might be a COP of 30 to make it theoretically possible to close the loop. That's based on a guess that the PF effect warms the cell by 10 degrees C. In practice the requirement to close the loop with a wet CF cell is likely to be more stringent than that. Wet CF cells seem to me to be unlikely to ever be good for anything practical, regardless of how real the effect is, due to the poor quality of the heat produced. The gas phase cells, such as the alleged Rossi Roarer, seem to me to be much more likely to eventually evolve into something useful (likelihood that Rossi's a fraud aside). Defkalion's cells, though they may be made of smoke and mirrors, run sufficiently hot and with a sufficiently high COP to make closing the loop seem feasible. (Since they've never demonstrated anything, it's quite possible that they've already closed the loop, and drive their control hardware using heat from the reaction. After all, we haven't seen their cells in action, so we have no reason to think they don't!)
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 11-12-26 02:57 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: Try responding to a real argument: if the claim, as Aussie Guy made it, is for a device with a COP of 5 over an input measured in watts, then why not close the loop? What COP would you need? 10? 100? what? Defkalion, by the way, claims 35x. As I said elsewhere, it depends on the temperature rise in the cell caused by the PF effect. Depending on how hot the cell operates, a reasonable estimate might be a COP of 30 to make it theoretically possible to close the loop. That's based on a guess that the PF effect warms the cell by 10 degrees C. In practice the requirement to close the loop with a wet CF cell is likely to be more stringent than that. I understand but, not to drive this into the ground, why is it necessarily so? Is there nothing you can do to such a cell to get a higher delta T? Larger electrodes? More current? Less coolant flow? Obviously I don't know -- just throwing out some guesses.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: In practice the requirement to close the loop with a wet CF cell is likely to be more stringent than that. I understand but, not to drive this into the ground, why is it necessarily so? Is there nothing you can do to such a cell to get a higher delta T? Larger electrodes? More current? Less coolant flow? Obviously I don't know -- just throwing out some guesses. I suggest you stop guessing and read the literature. Cells running heat after death have closed the loop. Apart from them, no laboratory scale device can produce electricity. Anyone who understands heat engines and familiar with the literature can see see why, and why skeptics who demand this are being absurd. The reasons are obvious: the reaction is very small, the water is not pressurized, and the reaction cannot be controlled. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On 11-12-26 03:26 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-12-26 02:57 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: Try responding to a real argument: if the claim, as Aussie Guy made it, is for a device with a COP of 5 over an input measured in watts, then why not close the loop? What COP would you need? 10? 100? what? Defkalion, by the way, claims 35x. As I said elsewhere, it depends on the temperature rise in the cell caused by the PF effect. Depending on how hot the cell operates, a reasonable estimate might be a COP of 30 to make it theoretically possible to close the loop. That's based on a guess that the PF effect warms the cell by 10 degrees C. In practice the requirement to close the loop with a wet CF cell is likely to be more stringent than that. I understand but, not to drive this into the ground, why is it necessarily so? Is there nothing you can do to such a cell to get a higher delta T? Larger electrodes? More current? Less coolant flow? Obviously I don't know -- just throwing out some guesses. That's really a different question. The question you first posed was a request to know whether or why not AG was or wasn't going to close the loop with his COP=5 cells, and that's all I was addressing: With COP=5 and a reasonably typical wet CF cell, it's theoretically impossible to close the loop. Hacking the borrowed cells to boost the efficiency is outside the scope of that particular question. Now, to take up your second question, should it be possible to build a wet CF cell which gives enough thermal boost due to the PF effect so that you can get something useful out of it? Jed and Ed Storms have, IIRC, both alleged that it should be possible. You seal the cell and pressurize it, so it can run toasty warm, and you do something nobody's figured out yet with the electrodes to get the reaction rate up really high, and the result is something which makes enough heat to be good for something. Frankly, it seems to me that starting with an electrolysis cell is starting with one foot in a bucket of cement if you want useful energy out, but I haven't run any numbers so the True Believers (as opposed to the so-so believers) will no doubt jump on me for being needlessly negative. (Somewhere along the line this starts looking like the SSPS argument, which I think I first heard back when I was in college: You can run an SSPS at a low enough downlink energy level so that the energy density is less than that of sunlight, and still get lots of power out of a reasonable size antenna farm, so the idea is obviously totally practical. BZZZT! says my intuition, That can't be right! If the energy density is that low, no way you're going to get anything useful out of a practical antenna farm ... and if you can why not replace the rectennas with solar panels and dispense with the satellites ... but all I've ever gotten for that observation is grief from the True Believers.)
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Now, to take up your second question, should it be possible to build a wet CF cell which gives enough thermal boost due to the PF effect so that you can get something useful out of it? Jed and Ed Storms have, IIRC, both alleged that it should be possible. You seal the cell and pressurize it, so it can run toasty warm, and you do something nobody's figured out yet with the electrodes to get the reaction rate up really high . . . Sure. If you spent a ton of money and did all of this, you could generate electricity and maintain the electrochemical reaction. It would be a pointless tour de force. It would not prove anything that a calorimeter does not prove. I do not know any researchers who would consider doing this. They figure that people who do not believe calorimetry would not believe this demonstration either. They have a good point. If someone revealed a device of this nature, Mary Yugo would surely say it must be fake, with hidden wires. Frankly, it seems to me that starting with an electrolysis cell is starting with one foot in a bucket of cement if you want useful energy out . . . That is a good characterization. I do not know any researchers who thought that a electrolytic bulk-Pd-D2O system could ever be made into a practical source of energy. It is a laboratory tool to explore the phenomenon. It resembles Faraday's first electric generator (a hand-cranked homopolar generator). The skeptics' demand that it be made into a practical device, or a self-sustaining device, is analogous to demanding that Faraday power a railroad engine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I suggest you stop guessing and read the literature. I suggest you stop referring vaguely to some amorphous literature and answer the question -- see below for a clarification. Cells running heat after death have closed the loop. Apart from them, no laboratory scale device can produce electricity. Apart from them? So the after death cells produce electricity? I don't think you mean that. Heat maybe. But please clarify. If you do mean they make electricity, I'd like to know exactly how much for how long with no input energy-- also the dimensions of the cells. Same question if it's heat -- how much, how long, how measured, how blanked and/or controlled, and what dimensions. Answering such questions clearly and unequivocally shouldn't be difficult if these things really exist. And I will ask again: is there an experiment in which all energy input is discontinued from a cell and it continues to provide heat or electricity (I don't care which) for a VERY LONG PERIOD-- such as weeks or more -- one which is well and properly documented by reliable people and which totally and irrevocably rules out (by proper blanking, controls and measurements) any source of energy OTHER THAN NUCLEAR? It seems to me, if there is, it would be spectacularly important, would have been widely replicated and published in major journals. If you didn't mean that, then say so. Otherwise, please give us a place where we can assure ourselves that there is such a thing and that it does what you claim. If anything about this request is not clear, please ask. Your previous answer was non-responsive in my opinion.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: hey figure that people who do not believe calorimetry would not believe this demonstration either. They have a good point. If someone revealed a device of this nature, Mary Yugo would surely say it must be fake, with hidden wires. I'd believe almost anything, including most particularly Defkalion and Rossi claims, if they were properly tested, the tests were independently and properly replicated and someone or some organization I trusted did them. As long as Rossi provides the venue, the power, the coolant, the pump and most of the output measuring equipment while refusing to make control runs, it's a strict NO GO. As long as Defkalion sticks to words and blurry photos, that's a complete no go as well. And no further comment is needed about Rossi's anonymous client who supposedly bought ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED identical E-cats for some unstated purpose and won't identify or be interviewed. That is oh... s... convenient. And so not credible! A million E-cats this coming year, Rossi says ? Yah shoore. I apologize for having to state this over and over but Jed keeps saying the same silly claim about what I would say about hidden wires over and over.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest you stop guessing and read the literature. I suggest you stop referring vaguely to some amorphous literature and answer the question . . . No can do. I learned years ago there is no point to spoon feeding information to skeptics. First they misunderstand. Then they demand more and more. You will have do your own homework. Apart from them? So the after death cells produce electricity? I rest my case. You can't be serious. And I will ask again: is there an experiment in which all energy input is discontinued from a cell and it continues to provide heat or electricity (I don't care which) for a VERY LONG PERIOD-- such as weeks or more -- one which is well and properly documented by reliable people . . . If I tell you they went for hours, you will say they should have gone for days. If I say they went for days, you demand weeks. You will move the goal posts to months, then years. This is all nonsense. The only relevant criterion is whether the heat after death reaction exceeds the limits of chemistry. It does, in most cases. For details, read the literature. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I'd believe almost anything, including most particularly Defkalion and Rossi claims, if they were properly tested, the tests were independently and properly replicated and someone or some organization I trusted did them. No you will not believe almost anything. You believe nothing. These experiments have been replicated at over 180 major labs, independently and properly replicated. You don't believe a single one of them. You have not even bothered to look at most, and the few that you claim you read you say make no sense and are poorly written. Stop pretending you will believe. Stop pretending you will take the time to read papers, or make the effort to understand them. You have had 22 years to learn about this field, but you have learned nothing. The questions you are asking here are idiotic. Anyone who has bothered to read a few papers can see that. You will never bother to learn anything. Don't pretend otherwise. You are a hopelessly bigoted, ignorant naysayer. You never bother to do your own homework. Your attitude was starkly revealed in your response to my statement that doctors who do not wash their hands are infecting many patients. This is common knowledge. It has been reported in the mainstream press and in major medical journals. You can find papers on it U.S., European and Japanese national institutes of health. Yet when I mentioned this, instead of taking a few minutes to learn about it, you lashed out with snide, baseless allegations that this has only been discussed at some whacko website. When I and others showed you mainstream websites discussing this, you contradicted what it says at these websites with the first random unfounded nonsense that popped into your head: The problem is less with doctors and nurses than it is with aides of various types, janitors, food workers, and all the other less educated hospital staff. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest you stop guessing and read the literature. I suggest you stop referring vaguely to some amorphous literature and answer the question . . . No can do. I learned years ago there is no point to spoon feeding information to skeptics. First they misunderstand. Then they demand more and more. You will have do your own homework. If that is the best you can do, and if you are one of the best known authorities in cold fusion/LENR, I am starting to understand why it is so difficult to get funding for more research. In case it slipped your mind, it's those who make the claims who have to support them. Do your own homework usually means the person saying it has no clue where to find the accurate and appropriate information or that such information doesn't exist or, at the very least, is not clear or not accepted as accurate by the scientific community. Apart from them? So the after death cells produce electricity? I rest my case. You can't be serious. Reread what you wrote. It implies the cells produce electricity. Here's the quote: Cells running heat after death have closed the loop. Apart from them, no laboratory scale device can produce electricity.The implication is clear. The cells can produce electricity. If that isn't what you meant, just say so. I even tried to help you correct it! Geez. Of course, I'm serious. Read what you wrote, man! And I will ask again: is there an experiment in which all energy input is discontinued from a cell and it continues to provide heat or electricity (I don't care which) for a VERY LONG PERIOD-- such as weeks or more -- one which is well and properly documented by reliable people . . . If I tell you they went for hours, you will say they should have gone for days. If I say they went for days, you demand weeks. You will move the goal posts to months, then years. This is all nonsense. The only relevant criterion is whether the heat after death reaction exceeds the limits of chemistry. It does, in most cases. For details, read the literature. It must do more than barely exceed the limits of chemistry, what ever exactly that is. It must be a properly performed and controlled/blanked/calibrated experiment. If it's a nuclear power source, why would it not exceed chemistry by orders of magnitude? What stops it from so doing? Why would you believe it's nuclear if it doesn't vastly exceed chemical limits? It seems to me it's questions like this and responses like Jed's which make it impossible to get funding. And Krivit's allegations of persistent fraud, if they get much traction, don't help either. It seems to me the CF/LENR community must do much better than it is if what Jed just wrote is an example of how it reacts to reasonable questions. With Rossi and Defkalion truly acting and writing like clowns, it's not hard to see why there is no major press coverage or much of anything else going on, a full year after the original announcement and hoopla. And Aussie Guy's extravagant writing and claims, followed by what amounts to backing down on them, doesn't help either. This stuff gets less credible and more fanciful every day.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Dec 26, 2011, at 16:57, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: With Rossi and Defkalion truly acting and writing like clowns, it's not hard to see why there is no major press coverage or much of anything else going on, a full year after the original announcement and hoopla. And Aussie Guy's extravagant writing and claims, followed by what amounts to backing down on them, doesn't help either. This stuff gets less credible and more fanciful every day. What, you don't believe in these cells that reliably produce heat, built by a secret research team unknown to this list and without any relation to anything in Jed's encyclopedic library, tested by a company flush in cash but that must remain anonymous? Geez, what will it take to convince you of anything?
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Cells running heat after death have closed the loop. Apart from them, no laboratory scale device can produce electricity.The implication is clear. The cells can produce electricity. If that isn't what you meant, just say so. Obviously I mean they produce heat in self sustaining mode. You have read nothing and you know nothing so you failed to understand that. You also fail to understand what anyone with elementary knowledge will know: any device which produces heat can be used to produce electricity with thermoelectric devices. Arata ran a small motor with one heated by a self-sustaining gas-loaded cell. All Seebeck calorimeters produce electricity, so any self-sustaining device inside of one is acting as electric generator, roughly on the scale of the plutonium-powered pacemakers of the 1970s. (Before you lash out with snide comments about how plutonium-powered pacemakers never existed, I suggest you look them up.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Arata ran a small motor with one heated by a self-sustaining gas-loaded cell. Cool! Did anyone verify this or replicate it? And how long did it run and at what output level? Why is it that specific questions as to power output and duration are, to some cold fusion advocates, like sunshine to vampires? It's sort of reminiscent of Rossi typically rushing to shut down his demonstrations for dinner or whatever after only a few hours of operation ... and of Aussie Guy bowing out of providing data on his B level cells after saying qualitatively how fantasmagoric they were. It's so discouraging and prevalent a phenomenon that I am thinking of naming it. Maybe Cold Fusion Evasion.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
We need to generate electricity. To do that we need more than 120 deg C steam. So we wait for the high temp thermal oil E-Cat. The fame belongs to FP. I'm nothing more than a system integrator. As for closing the loop with a thermal FPE device, you do understand the Carnot cycle? If not, please review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_Engine#Efficiency What you suggest is not possible with a simple low temperature lab cell. With a FPE device that can generate 450 deg C steam, it is possible to Close the Loop. In fact it will be required of any FPE electricity generation system. All thermal fossil and nuclear electricity generation plants run Closed Loop. I expect Rossi to show this very soon. AG On 12/27/2011 4:53 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: I take you do not read what I have written on this subject? I try but sometimes my email client hiccups. Last I remember, you had sealed a deal with Rossi and getting a whatever-watt plant was just around the corner and an absolute certainty. You were going to provide the container and generators. I forgot who was assembling it all but it doesn't matter. Now, you're apparently waiting for specifications of some machine to be delivered in the indefinite future. This is progress? As for the PFE cells, if they make 5 watts from 1 watt or even 1 watt from 200 mW, then there has to be some way to make them self-running for as long as the fuel lasts by recycling output power to the input. And given it's nuclear, the fuel should last a long time and yield a huge amount of energy. Want respect, not mention tons of fame and fortune? Close the loop and make them self running except for (rare) refueling. You'd be the first. That's for sure.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: It must do more than barely exceed the limits of chemistry, what ever exactly that is. The first report in the literature showed it exceeding the limits by a factor of 1,700. That's not barely; that is a lot. Like a person pole vaulting 10 km high. If you do not understand what exactly the limits of chemical reactions are, you are not capable of understanding cold fusion. That is the most important concept in the field. It is the starting point. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
I know he is very busy. I see getting the NI control system working very well is his current priority. I agree with that. I do know electricity generation is a high priority. He needs to show this before Defkalion does. The first to show electricity generation from their device will gain high ground, secure a place in history and have a very full order book as then almost ALL the doubts are gone. What will remain are operational questions such as MTBF, MTTR, LCOE, etc. AG On 12/27/2011 1:47 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Hi Aussie, I expect what Rossi will offer us is a complete package, including the 330 Ac kW gen set, all tied up with a nicely integrated NI thermal kW and Ac kW control system. That would be nice. When Rossi is ready to offer the system to us, we are ready to evaluate his offering. Do you have a best guestimate as to when you think Rossi might get around to delivering the goods? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
MaryYugo asks: Why is it that specific questions as to power output and duration are, to some cold fusion advocates, like sunshine to vampires? And Mary, the same could be said for your ANONYMOUS modeler. When asked in a very polite, respectful manner some specific questions by Dave Roberson, YOUR ANONYMOUS 'modeler' responded with, Sorry but I think my acquaintance doesn't wish to play with this any more. So it's ok for your side to avoid answering when the questions get tough? Sorry, NO GO. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Please do the Collective a favor and take your anonymous, repetitious and hypocritical arrogance elsewhere; same goes for your chickensh*t 'acquaintance'. -Mark == On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 2:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mary, it is quite unfortunate that he does not want to share additional information concerning his model. This is just the sort of model that is needed to determine whether or not it is possible to replicate Rossi results with heat storage. I am trying to keep an open mind as much as possible in this case and really would like to proceed with more details. Please discuss this with the guy and let me know if he really wants to find the truth. I can only assume that he is hiding something if he runs like this when asked probing questions. I have many more items to compare. It might be possible that I am reading your friends output in an erroneous manner. I thought that he had a direct model of the temperature at T2 just as with the real ECAT. Why would we not compare these two curves if they are available? This is more like comparing apples with apples versus some other parameter. Does he in fact calculate the water temperature or did I miss something? By the way, it is nonsense to suggest that this is like showing that Santa does not exist. I am maintaining an open mind regarding whether or not Rossi is real in this case and it would be a crime to assume otherwise. I seek the truth only. Dave Hi Dave, After Xmas, I'll approach him to see if he wants to continue. I doubt he has anything to hide but he's busy and Rossi to him is just a diversion. I'm pretty sure he does calculate the output water temperature. I will look again later at the curves and ask him about it. I have also suggested to him to get his own anonymous email and to interact directly. The Santa reference doesn't refer to you or to anyone else who has an open mind and includes in their thinking the substantial probability that Rossi does not have what he claims and that his experiments were in some way deceptive. I suspect it's about people who write like Jed and AussieGuy but then, it wasn't my analogy so I really don't know. Merry Xmas. M. Y.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: MaryYugo asks: “Why is it that specific questions as to power output and duration are, to some cold fusion advocates, like sunshine to vampires?” ** ** And Mary, the same could be said for your ANONYMOUS modeler. When asked in a very polite, respectful manner some specific questions by Dave Roberson, YOUR ANONYMOUS ‘modeler’ responded with, “Sorry but I think my acquaintance doesn't wish to play with this any more.” ** ** So it’s ok for your side to avoid answering when the questions get tough? Sorry, NO GO. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander… ** ** Please do the Collective a favor and take your anonymous, repetitious and hypocritical arrogance elsewhere; same goes for your chickensh*t ‘acquaintance’. My acquaintance (who, in reality, I only know as an Internet identity) replied to three or four of Dave's inquiries in meticulous detail. After that, he may have felt that Dave was not following his argument. I don't know for sure and I have no opinion on that -- I wish and would have preferred it if he had made the assumptions underlying the model, the identity of the software, and the parameters of the simulation more clear but I'm not him. I don't control him. My opinion on the modeling is that it's probably good enough to cast a doubt on the Rossi and Lewan data of October 6 -- a doubt which is so easily resolved in the real world by a proper experimental design and a second much longer experiment, that the model itself is not worth arguing at length about. BTW, that is also what NASA officially wrote about the event specifically and about Rossi in general (as quoted by Krivit). My informant's reluctance is no justification or excuse for Jed's failure to supply proper citations for his, as usual, exorbitant and florid claims about life after death cells that run but we seem never to know how long or making how much power, how it was verified and independently replicated.It's also no excuse for Aussie Guy's claims which make it seem as if everything with Rossi and him is a done deal and all of it is happening soon -- until he reveals there is no contract, no delivery date, and no deal at all. Maybe Aussie should become an anonymous client to get a better delivery position? Rossi seems to prefer that type of customer. As for the rest of your remarks, I am very tempted to reply as rudely as you but out of respect for the others, I will resist the impulse, with some difficulty.
RE: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
This pretty much sums it up. If there is anything I have learned from the pathoskeps over the past year is that intellectual and well-reasoned arguments are not really necessary to get your point across, and that annoying repetition can be effective. -m
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Your assuming their pay check allows them to change their opinion. MY and others put in so much time that I feel they have a stake in the game and it is not about FPE devices being accepted as real. AG On 12/27/2011 10:00 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: This pretty much sums it up… “If there is anything I have learned from the pathoskeps over the past year is that intellectual and well-reasoned arguments are not really necessary to get your point across, and that annoying repetition can be effective.” -m
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
http://i.imgur.com/YdetE.png
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: http://i.imgur.com/YdetE.png That was a response by Aber0der to this Alsetalokin remark: I'll buy a Mac when you can pour water in one end and make espresso with the steam from the internal iEcat out the other end. Here: http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2715page=1 (a sign on and password may be needed but they're free and readily available for the asking) http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2715page=1
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Mary, I would like very much to work with your acquaintance to see how his model compares to some of the in dept analysis I completed upon the October 6 test data. I totally understand how his model must work and just want to see how it represents some of the fingerprints of LENR that I have found to exist. The most apparent one is the bump in T2 that I was referring to at the time stamp of 16:00 according to his graph. My theory is that a significant amount of LENR energy is released due to the drive waveform shape just prior to that time and I do not see any suggestion of it yet within your friends model. This is one of several important points that need comparison. I would like to have his model to experiment with, but I would not be able to run it at this location. I considered building one with the tools I have here, but felt that I would not be successful. I plead with this gentleman to work with me to help uncover the truth about any excess energy that might be found to arise out of LENR. If none shows up after the correct questions are presented and carefully discussed, I would not hesitate to report those results. It is in all of our interests to reveal the truth and I do not believe in hiding facts. It is hoped that the gentleman will come back to the table and have an honest and open discussion which I think will be productive. Mary, here is an opportunity for you to help me to prove or disprove Rossi's test results. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2011 6:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: MaryYugo asks: “Why is it that specific questions as to power output and duration are, to some cold fusion advocates, like sunshine to vampires?” And Mary, the same could be said for your ANONYMOUS modeler. When asked in a very polite, respectful manner some specific questions by Dave Roberson, YOUR ANONYMOUS ‘modeler’ responded with, “Sorry but I think my acquaintance doesn't wish to play with this any more.” So it’s ok for your side to avoid answering when the questions get tough? Sorry, NO GO. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander… Please do the Collective a favor and take your anonymous, repetitious and hypocritical arrogance elsewhere; same goes for your chickensh*t ‘acquaintance’. My acquaintance (who, in reality, I only know as an Internet identity) replied to three or four of Dave's inquiries in meticulous detail. After that, he may have felt that Dave was not following his argument. I don't know for sure and I have no opinion on that -- I wish and would have preferred it if he had made the assumptions underlying the model, the identity of the software, and the parameters of the simulation more clear but I'm not him. I don't control him. My opinion on the modeling is that it's probably good enough to cast a doubt on the Rossi and Lewan data of October 6 -- a doubt which is so easily resolved in the real world by a proper experimental design and a second much longer experiment, that the model itself is not worth arguing at length about. BTW, that is also what NASA officially wrote about the event specifically and about Rossi in general (as quoted by Krivit). My informant's reluctance is no justification or excuse for Jed's failure to supply proper citations for his, as usual, exorbitant and florid claims about life after death cells that run but we seem never to know how long or making how much power, how it was verified and independently replicated.It's also no excuse for Aussie Guy's claims which make it seem as if everything with Rossi and him is a done deal and all of it is happening soon -- until he reveals there is no contract, no delivery date, and no deal at all. Maybe Aussie should become an anonymous client to get a better delivery position? Rossi seems to prefer that type of customer. As for the rest of your remarks, I am very tempted to reply as rudely as you but out of respect for the others, I will resist the impulse, with some difficulty.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 07:32 PM 12/25/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: I can't discuss the cell technology yet. I can say I consider a Ni-H cell as a FPE device. You can call a pig an eagle, but that won't make it fly. Seriously, the term Fleischman-Pons effect is taken. It usually refers to the Fleischman-Pons Heat Effect, FPHE, and is used only for PdD devices. The FPHE is, in my view, an established phenomenon, serious opposition to it disappeared from peer-reviewed journals years ago. The *cause* of the FPHE remains in question, but the evidence is quite strong that it's a process that converts deuterium to helium, see Storms, Status of cold fusion (2010), Naturwissenschaften, October, 2010. I have seen no peer-reviewed criticisms that manage to impeach the *correlation* of heat with helium. That is, if there is anomalous heat with PdD, there is helium. No heat, no helium. The statistical significance is very high. NiH LENR has no such well-established foundation. It may or may not be the same reaction. I've seen the comment, I like to be parsimonious with miracles, but that's not a solid argument that the two reactions are the same. It's a reason to *suspect* that they might be the same. (Obviously, they are not literally the same reaction; rather, it's possible that some kind of mechanism can be elucidated, eventually, that would apply to both PdD and NiH reactions, and, as well, to some other possibilities hinted in the literature, but we should not found the name of a reaction on speculation about the mechanism, or on speculative similarity. That was the problem with calling the FPHE cold fusion, though, in fact, it almost certainly is some kind of fusion; it took years for the clear evidence to surface on that.) So, if these devices are not PdD devices, please don't call them FPE devices, and, if they work, and are NiH, *that would not prove that the FPHE was real.* However, we already know the FPHE is real, but, in the other direction, that certainly doesn't demonstrate that NiH LENR is real. It only makes it a bit more believable, not quite as outrageous.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
I say DDSLA, Different Dog, Same Leg Action. Until it is proven what causes the FPE is not what causes the Ni-H effect, I'll continue to refer to ALL such devices as FPE devices. I will not stand by and see FP denied the right to the effect they discovered. To go further, after we start commercialization, we will pay 5% of our profits to FP. I would suggest that Leonardo and Defkalion should consider doing likewise. AG On 12/27/2011 12:24 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 07:32 PM 12/25/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: I can't discuss the cell technology yet. I can say I consider a Ni-H cell as a FPE device. You can call a pig an eagle, but that won't make it fly. Seriously, the term Fleischman-Pons effect is taken. It usually refers to the Fleischman-Pons Heat Effect, FPHE, and is used only for PdD devices. The FPHE is, in my view, an established phenomenon, serious opposition to it disappeared from peer-reviewed journals years ago. The *cause* of the FPHE remains in question, but the evidence is quite strong that it's a process that converts deuterium to helium, see Storms, Status of cold fusion (2010), Naturwissenschaften, October, 2010. I have seen no peer-reviewed criticisms that manage to impeach the *correlation* of heat with helium. That is, if there is anomalous heat with PdD, there is helium. No heat, no helium. The statistical significance is very high. NiH LENR has no such well-established foundation. It may or may not be the same reaction. I've seen the comment, I like to be parsimonious with miracles, but that's not a solid argument that the two reactions are the same. It's a reason to *suspect* that they might be the same. (Obviously, they are not literally the same reaction; rather, it's possible that some kind of mechanism can be elucidated, eventually, that would apply to both PdD and NiH reactions, and, as well, to some other possibilities hinted in the literature, but we should not found the name of a reaction on speculation about the mechanism, or on speculative similarity. That was the problem with calling the FPHE cold fusion, though, in fact, it almost certainly is some kind of fusion; it took years for the clear evidence to surface on that.) So, if these devices are not PdD devices, please don't call them FPE devices, and, if they work, and are NiH, *that would not prove that the FPHE was real.* However, we already know the FPHE is real, but, in the other direction, that certainly doesn't demonstrate that NiH LENR is real. It only makes it a bit more believable, not quite as outrageous.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 03:14 PM 12/26/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Vorl Bek mailto:vorl@antichef.comvorl@antichef.com wrote: Nobody ever closes the loop. That is incorrect. Many people have closed the loop, starting with Fleischmann and Pons. In cold fusion jargon, closing the loop is called running in heat after death mode. Fleischmann once called it fully ignited, borrowing the term from the plasma fusion scientists. Are you saying the cell runs in that mode indefinitely and at a level which totally rules out (hopefully by several orders of magnitude) anything other than a nuclear effect? If so, that's a paper I'd like to read and a demo I'd like to see. If it won't run indefinitely or at least long enough so that one can calculate the nuclear fuel has been exhausted or largely used up, then it's probably not what I mean by a closed loop. A great deal of mischief is done by applying standards for commercial application to what amounts to, still, research efforts. Let's set Rossi aside, there is way too much noise, a speculative amount of heat (large by comparison with FPHE results), and no light there. CF (FPHE) cells have produced many times the energy put into them, but erratically. Excess heat is more reliable, and independently verifiable if helium is measured (i.e., calorimetry error would not generate correlated helium!) HAD (Heat after death) cells are operating with no power input. Therefore they have infinite COP. However, this doesn't rule out, at least not immediately and obviously, that the heat is due to, say, the cigarette lighter effect, from stored deuterium combustion. I.e., the cell outgasses deuterium, which then spontaneously, at the surface, supposedly, combines with oxygen to produce heat. That hypothesis has a few problems. For starters, there isn't nearly enough oxygen in the cells to do that, the outgassing deuterium (and it will outgas) would drive the relatively small amount of residual oxygen out. (Sure, oxygen was generated stochiometrically with the deuterium, and if the oxygen were stored in the cell with the same pressure as is the deuterium, it would be quite a bit of fireworks. Devastating, in fact. However, in open cells, the oxygen leaves the cell as it is generated, and in closed cells, excess oxygen is still vented, my understanding (otherwise the pressure would rise very high, as oxygen isn't loaded into palladium. Some of the oxygen combines with deuterium that bubbles up, in a closed cell, at the recombiner, but the amount of deuterium in a fully loaded piece of palladium is phenomenal. Problem is, getting energy from that without combining it with oxygen ... I can imagine someone figuring out a way that oxygen could slowly leak into the cell and sustain some heat, but the hot water vapor would surely extinguish that, you'd have to work really hard to keep that going. And none of this would make helium.) But these cells don't go on producing heat indefinitely. Jed knows more about what's been done in this way, but my understanding is that, on occasion, the cells have indeed produced more energy than could be explained by all available chemical components. However, the real proof of nuclear is a nuclear product, when such can be found. (One might have a nuclear reaction with no nuclear product, if the product isotopes are those found naturally; perhaps the cell would alter natural abundances, but FPHE cells don't produce massive amounts of transmuted elements, with one huge exception: helium. They produce helium if they are producing excess heat, in quantities that are roughly what would be expected if the reaction causing the anomalous heat is deuterium fusion.) People who focus on possible commercial success often delude themselves into thinking that if there is no readily available commercial application, therefore the reaction must be bogus. This is backwards. For some years, now, I've been urging interested people to look at the helium evidence. Storms covers it well in his book (The science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) and his Naturwissenschaften review Status of cold fusion (2010). It's a nuclear reaction, all right, though the helium doesn't tell us much more than that, for any reaction that starts with deuterium and ends with helium would produce roughly the same heat ratio to helium.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 5:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mary, I would like very much to work with your acquaintance to see how his model compares to some of the in dept analysis I completed upon the October 6 test data. I totally understand how his model must work and just want to see how it represents some of the fingerprints of LENR that I have found to exist. The most apparent one is the bump in T2 that I was referring to at the time stamp of 16:00 according to his graph. My theory is that a significant amount of LENR energy is released due to the drive waveform shape just prior to that time and I do not see any suggestion of it yet within your friends model. This is one of several important points that need comparison. I would like to have his model to experiment with, but I would not be able to run it at this location. I considered building one with the tools I have here, but felt that I would not be successful. I plead with this gentleman to work with me to help uncover the truth about any excess energy that might be found to arise out of LENR. If none shows up after the correct questions are presented and carefully discussed, I would not hesitate to report those results. It is in all of our interests to reveal the truth and I do not believe in hiding facts. It is hoped that the gentleman will come back to the table and have an honest and open discussion which I think will be productive. Mary, here is an opportunity for you to help me to prove or disprove Rossi's test results. Dave Answered by personal email.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 03:19 PM 12/26/2011, Vorl Bek wrote: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Nobody ever closes the loop. That is incorrect. Many people have closed the loop, starting with Fleischmann and Pons. In cold fusion jargon, closing the loop is called running in heat after death mode. Fleischmann once called it fully ignited, borrowing the term from the plasma fusion scientists. Why didn't FP, and all the other people who closed the loop, arrange demos, public or private, to interest investors? After 22 years, and all those loop-closing experiments, why do we still not have a Mr. Fusion water heater? Because nobody has figured out how to harness the FPHE to make a reliable water heater. After less than a decade of investment, the large institutional investors who funded some of the early cold fusion research realized that, even if this worked, it was far from being a commercial possibility in the short term. Cold fusion is real, but classifying Pons and Fleischmann as free energy promoters is really offensive. They were scientists, and the research they were doing was not initially aimed at commercial applications, they were simply studying the predictions of the approximations of standard quantum mechanics to the situation in condensed matter. They imagined that any difference would be small, probably below detection. They were surprised, then, when one of their cells melted down. It took them five years to get to the point where they were seeing measurable excess heat in one cell out of about six, and that's when intellectual property issues caused the University of Utah to force them to announce. They were not ready. If you look at more recent surveys of cold fusion results, there are approaches that produce excess heat nearly all the time, but the amount varies greatly. Rumors existed in the community regarding Rossi's work, but most researchers didn't really believe it, so far was this from what was well-known. And that's where we are at, for we have no proof regarding Rossi, in any way that allows true scientific examination of it. If Rossi is real, then PdD is probably little more than a scientific curiosity, of little commercial value, because the approach is so fragile and the materials so expensive. Still, Fleischmann and Pons really deserve a Nobel Prize, ultimately. Even if no usable commercial energy is produced by the FPHE. Rather, they showed us (together with the work of hundreds of scientists who succeeded in replicating the effect) that what we thought we knew about nuclear reactions was shallow. Very accurate, to be sure, as long as we confine ourselves to two-body, plasma interactions. But unable to accurately predict the behavior of condensed matter.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 04:27 PM 12/26/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mary Yugo mailto:maryyu...@gmail.commaryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest you stop guessing and read the literature. I suggest you stop referring vaguely to some amorphous literature and answer the question . . . No can do. I learned years ago there is no point to spoon feeding information to skeptics. First they misunderstand. Then they demand more and more. You will have do your own homework. Apart from them? So the after death cells produce electricity? I rest my case. You can't be serious. Mary, let me explain what Jed is talking about. He's concluding, from your question, that you haven't done your homework. And you haven't. Look, I was quite skeptical about cold fusion, I believed, with about everyone else capable of understanding the issues, that what Pons and Fleischmann had claimed had not been confirmed. In order to change my mind, I had to really start reading on the subject. I was a Wikipedia editor, and I'd come across some strange stuff happening with the Cold fusion article, so I started reading the sources. I eventually bought a series of books, what I could find cheap, and my purchases included the major skeptical books (I.e., Huizenga, Taubes, etc.) The title of Huizenga's book was Cold fusion: scientific fiasco of the century. He didn't realize the irony, I think. It was that, a fiasco, but not just in one direction, as quite a number of writers have pointed out. Scientists abandoned scientific protocol, resorting to polemic and insult. It was really a mess. I do suggest reading the material. I do ultimately recommend two books: Storms, The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (World Scientific,2007), but also a more popular book, Beaudette, Excess Heat, which I think was published around 2002, and it is available as a free PDF from lenr-canr.org. I bought the book, though. Jed is a bit crusty, it comes from years of dealing with certain kinds of skeptics, who do have their fingers stuffed in their ears, they will raise preposterous explanation after preposterous explanation, giving their own loony ideas complete credence, while, at the same time, dismissing as delusional the confirmed reports of serious researchers. It's easy to understand a certain initial skepticism here. After all, if LENR was possible, particularly PdD LENR, why wasn't it reported before? Of course, it turns out that it was (possibly) reported before, and, futher, after the FP announcement, people who had worked with highly loaded PdD did recall certain anomalies, that they had simply passed off as unexplainable. Mizuno, for example, Jed translated his book. Thanks, Jed! Then there is that pesky Coulomb barrier. What I found, though, was that there was ample opinion among quantum physicists that it was possible that the unexplored conditions of condensed matter just might provide some pathway around that, some kind of tunneling or alternate reaction. Recent work has actually predicted fusion from a physical arrangement of deuterium that *might* be present, quite rarely, in highly loaded PdD. That's using, apparently, standard quantum mechanics, but that theory is as yet unverified. Basically, the math that the energized skeptics applied to claim that cold fusion was impossible was probably correct, for the reaction that they applied it to. That isn't the reaction! And that explains why the neutrons and tritium and He-3 that this reaction (d-d) predicted were (mostly) absent. It all boiled down to hubris, assuming that we knew something that we did not know. How could we possibly know that *no unknown reaction was possible? Don't worry, Mary, you don't have to believe in anything; what I'm suggesting is that you reserve a portion of your skepticism for the claims of standard scientists who apply what they know from one narrow field and from that assume they can make pronouncements about what they have never researched. If you have researched cold fusion, and succeeded in replicating the effect, they will call you a believer, completely dismissing all the work you did to be careful about your measurements, to avoid jumping to conclusions, etc. Why is it, I've seen it asked, that all the glowing reports about cold fusion are from believers? Well, would you do what Miles described as the most difficult experimental work of his long career, if you thought the whole thing was a crock and totally impossible? The famous negative replicators in 1989-1990 spend a fraction of the time necessary to build up high D loading in palladium, and when they saw nothing, we we can confidently predict (in hindsight) from their experimental descriptions, they concluded that Pons and Fleischmann were charlatans. You may believe that Rossi is a charlatan, he certainly looks like one, I love that video of him looking up from the controls during the Mats Lewan demo. I imagine him saying Oh, I
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 04:52 PM 12/26/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mary Yugo mailto:maryyu...@gmail.commaryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I'd believe almost anything, including most particularly Defkalion and Rossi claims, if they were properly tested, the tests were independently and properly replicated and someone or some organization I trusted did them. No you will not believe almost anything. You believe nothing. These experiments have been replicated at over 180 major labs, independently and properly replicated. You don't believe a single one of them. You have not even bothered to look at most, and the few that you claim you read you say make no sense and are poorly written. Jed, that's really unfair. You are mixing up two very different situations, the Rossi/Defkalion issue, and the full body of data in cold fusion, which is what you are referring to here. Mary might indeed be confused about this. You should not be. Please don't mix the extensive, voluminous published research on cold fusion with the sketchy, questionable reports regarding Rossi's work. There is no comparison.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: You have not even bothered to look at most, and the few that you claim you read you say make no sense and are poorly written. Jed, that's really unfair. You are mixing up two very different situations, the Rossi/Defkalion issue, and the full body of data in cold fusion, which is what you are referring to here. You misunderstand. Yugo said she read McKubre and Miles and found them confusing, poorly written and unconvincing. That is what I referred to. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At 05:31 PM 12/26/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Arata ran a small motor with one heated by a self-sustaining gas-loaded cell. Cool! Did anyone verify this or replicate it? And how long did it run and at what output level? Mary! You can find this stuff yourself. Arata cells generate a low level of heat, without any input, and the experimental runs I've seen end at 3000 minutes, still cranking out the heat. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of data on how much heat is really involved, quantitatively. Arata's been replicated, that has been published as well. (This is all fairly recent. To be sure, investors are not falling over themselves to put money into a device that, with 7 grams of nanoparticle palladium and some deuterium gas, runs 4 degrees C hotter than the environment for 50 hours. In theory this could be scaled up, but at that level, I figured that with a mere $100,000 worth of palladium, I might be able to build a home hot water heater that would run for a while. However, there is a little problem: apparently the reaction ultimately poisons or uses up the reaction sites. If Rossi has found a way around that, it would indeed be remarkable. ) Why is it that specific questions as to power output and duration are, to some cold fusion advocates, like sunshine to vampires? We have that data for lots of experiments. Rossi is by no means typical of work in the field, beyond a certain class of workers in the field who aren't really scientists -- he isn't. Neither is Aussie Guy. It's sort of reminiscent of Rossi typically rushing to shut down his demonstrations for dinner or whatever after only a few hours of operation ... and of Aussie Guy bowing out of providing data on his B level cells after saying qualitatively how fantasmagoric they were. It's so discouraging and prevalent a phenomenon that I am thinking of naming it. Maybe Cold Fusion Evasion. It's been called fusion confusion. Look, Aussie Guy is anonymous, what he writes is next to meaningless. Don't mix this up with the huge corpus of work from hundreds of scientists around the world.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
I'm a new member of the list, but I'm reading the posts since January. I'm addicted... If we have a large COP (10-100), I believe we can use thin film thermogenerators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectricity) such as these http://www.micropelt.com/down/datasheet_mpg_d651_d751.pdf to make a self sustain wet cell... We can put thousands of those around a wet cell. They produce useful power with as little as 10 degrees Celsius (see datasheet). Cheers, Alberto.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
The 2.5 x 2.5 mm device has a max power output of approx 0.8 mW at 10 deg K differential. Assuming 1 Watt excess with a COP 5 yields 200 mW input. Would need around 300 of the MPG-D615 devices with fitted finned heat sinks to each device's COLD side to get good thermal transfer into the air. Could be doable with 75 devices per finned heat sink assembly per side of a square container. Optimal load resistance could be a issue. Something to look at in the future. AG On 12/27/2011 2:42 PM, Alberto De Souza wrote: I'm a new member of the list, but I'm reading the posts since January. I'm addicted... If we have a large COP (10-100), I believe we can use thin film thermogenerators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectricity) such as these http://www.micropelt.com/down/datasheet_mpg_d651_d751.pdf to make a self sustain wet cell... We can put thousands of those around a wet cell. They produce useful power with as little as 10 degrees Celsius (see datasheet). Cheers, Alberto.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Hi Abd Lomax, I'm glad to see you posting a lot now, and expressing strong doubts about Rossi. Are you continuing to develop your low cost tiny CF kits for electrolytic codeposition of Pd in deuterium heavy water electrolyte, using plastic to record the impacts of any generated neutrons, according to the SPAWAR paradigm? within mutual service, Rich On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 05:31 PM 12/26/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Arata ran a small motor with one heated by a self-sustaining gas-loaded cell. Cool! Did anyone verify this or replicate it? And how long did it run and at what output level? Mary! You can find this stuff yourself. Arata cells generate a low level of heat, without any input, and the experimental runs I've seen end at 3000 minutes, still cranking out the heat. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of data on how much heat is really involved, quantitatively. Arata's been replicated, that has been published as well. (This is all fairly recent. To be sure, investors are not falling over themselves to put money into a device that, with 7 grams of nanoparticle palladium and some deuterium gas, runs 4 degrees C hotter than the environment for 50 hours. In theory this could be scaled up, but at that level, I figured that with a mere $100,000 worth of palladium, I might be able to build a home hot water heater that would run for a while. However, there is a little problem: apparently the reaction ultimately poisons or uses up the reaction sites. If Rossi has found a way around that, it would indeed be remarkable. ) Why is it that specific questions as to power output and duration are, to some cold fusion advocates, like sunshine to vampires? We have that data for lots of experiments. Rossi is by no means typical of work in the field, beyond a certain class of workers in the field who aren't really scientists -- he isn't. Neither is Aussie Guy. It's sort of reminiscent of Rossi typically rushing to shut down his demonstrations for dinner or whatever after only a few hours of operation ... and of Aussie Guy bowing out of providing data on his B level cells after saying qualitatively how fantasmagoric they were. It's so discouraging and prevalent a phenomenon that I am thinking of naming it. Maybe Cold Fusion Evasion. It's been called fusion confusion. Look, Aussie Guy is anonymous, what he writes is next to meaningless. Don't mix this up with the huge corpus of work from hundreds of scientists around the world.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Dec 26, 2011, at 22:10, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Then there is that pesky Coulomb barrier. What I found, though, was that there was ample opinion among quantum physicists that it was possible that the unexplored conditions of condensed matter just might provide some pathway around that, some kind of tunneling or alternate reaction. Recent work has actually predicted fusion from a physical arrangement of deuterium that *might* be present, quite rarely, in highly loaded PdD. That's using, apparently, standard quantum mechanics, but that theory is as yet unverified. Oh? Citation, please?
RE: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Greetings Aussie, and a Merry Down-Under X-Mass to you. I've taken advantage of a brief respite between family obligations by sneaking over to my home office for some covert posting. Despite MY's self-defensive tactic of hoping to remain passively ignorant of the issues by demanding you spoon-feed her everything in a neat tidy little package, I believe she is correct on the matter that some of your remarks continue to remain shrouded in obscurity. However, from my perspective, parsing through obscurity is par-for-the-course when attempting to communicate with companies involved in the process of developing new unproven technologies, particularly technologies that hopefully will lead to competitive products. Therefore I shall continue my parsing endeavors in hopes of cutting down on misinterpretation innuendo: The cells we have obtained are electrochemical FPE cells. They are not commercial cells nor were they obtained from any of the sources in Jed's archives, nor current FPE device suppliers such as Leonardo, Defkalion, etc. We have made it openly known that we are in the market for FPE devices. We have been contacted by various sources. Can you clarify whom your supplier(s) are at this time? The content of your message implies (to me) that anonymity is currently preferred. Nevertheless, if you were to name some of those sources would we recognize any of them? One of those agreed to supply us several B grade cells. Not sure what B grade implies here. Does it mean their A cells are of a better quality... i.e.: better COP? If so, what are they planning on doing with the A cells. and will you be able to obtain any of them? I flew there, tested their cells and made commercial arrangements to obtain a license and loan of several cells that will enable us to replicate and build several demo FPE systems for our commercial business. Can you give some reasonable estimates as to how efficient these B cells are? What are the rated input/output COP energy measurements? I assume there is room for significant improvement after additional RD funding is eventually supplied. Again, my apologies if you have already stated this for the twelfth time, but what kind of products and services does your business plan on selling? Water heaters? Generators? Does your business already market similar products? Is there a website? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
We will be working with a local university to get the cells operational and then to build our own. We will go public when our cells are operational and we have the uni endorsed results. Please understand these are not commercial cells. They are to show, to potential clients and financial backers (banks), the FPE is real. AG On 12/26/2011 4:15 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Greetings Aussie, and a Merry Down-Under X-Mass to you. I’ve taken advantage of a brief respite between family obligations by sneaking over to my home office for some covert posting. Despite MY's self-defensive tactic of hoping to remain passively ignorant of the issues by demanding you spoon-feed her everything in a neat tidy little package, I believe she is correct on the matter that some of your remarks continue to remain shrouded in obscurity. However, from my perspective, parsing through obscurity is par-for-the-course when attempting to communicate with companies involved in the process of developing new unproven technologies, particularly technologies that hopefully will lead to competitive products. Therefore I shall continue my parsing endeavors in hopes of cutting down on misinterpretation innuendo: The cells we have obtained are electrochemical FPE cells. They are not commercial cells nor were they obtained from any of the sources in Jed's archives, nor current FPE device suppliers such as Leonardo, Defkalion, etc. We have made it openly known that we are in the market for FPE devices. We have been contacted by various sources. Can you clarify whom your supplier(s) are at this time? The content of your message implies (to me) that anonymity is currently preferred. Nevertheless, if you were to name some of those sources would we recognize any of them? One of those agreed to supply us several B grade cells. Not sure what B grade implies here. Does it mean their A cells are of a better quality... i.e.: better COP? If so, what are they planning on doing with the “A cells”… and will you be able to obtain any of them? I flew there, tested their cells and made commercial arrangements to obtain a license and loan of several cells that will enable us to replicate and build several demo FPE systems for our commercial business. Can you give some reasonable estimates as to how efficient these “B cells” are? What are the rated input/output COP energy measurements? I assume there is room for significant improvement after additional RD funding is eventually supplied. Again, my apologies if you have already stated this for the twelfth time, but what kind of products and services does your business plan on selling? Water heaters? Generators? Does your business already market similar products? Is there a website? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
The 2 cells were obtained from an Asian source. They are on loan for 3 months. The source will work remotely with our local uni to get them operational. They output greater than 1 watt with a COP greater than 5. We are funding the work at the local uni. The uni can publish the results from the cells we make locally. The source has received an up front payment. They will receive further funding as the cells are proven to work by the local uni and further funding when our replicant cells become operational. We plan to make our replicant cells available to other FPE researchers. These cells are not capable of delivering a E-Cat or Hyperion level of performance. They are designed to prove FP were correct, the FPE is real, to silence the FPE deniers and drive scientific investigation of the FPE. Our desire is simple. To accelerate the acceptance of the FPE, to get the effect properly understood and to see FPE devices powering our planet. OK, along the way to make a few dollars as well. AG On 12/26/2011 4:15 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Greetings Aussie, and a Merry Down-Under X-Mass to you. I’ve taken advantage of a brief respite between family obligations by sneaking over to my home office for some covert posting. Despite MY's self-defensive tactic of hoping to remain passively ignorant of the issues by demanding you spoon-feed her everything in a neat tidy little package, I believe she is correct on the matter that some of your remarks continue to remain shrouded in obscurity. However, from my perspective, parsing through obscurity is par-for-the-course when attempting to communicate with companies involved in the process of developing new unproven technologies, particularly technologies that hopefully will lead to competitive products. Therefore I shall continue my parsing endeavors in hopes of cutting down on misinterpretation innuendo: The cells we have obtained are electrochemical FPE cells. They are not commercial cells nor were they obtained from any of the sources in Jed's archives, nor current FPE device suppliers such as Leonardo, Defkalion, etc. We have made it openly known that we are in the market for FPE devices. We have been contacted by various sources. Can you clarify whom your supplier(s) are at this time? The content of your message implies (to me) that anonymity is currently preferred. Nevertheless, if you were to name some of those sources would we recognize any of them? One of those agreed to supply us several B grade cells. Not sure what B grade implies here. Does it mean their A cells are of a better quality... i.e.: better COP? If so, what are they planning on doing with the “A cells”… and will you be able to obtain any of them? I flew there, tested their cells and made commercial arrangements to obtain a license and loan of several cells that will enable us to replicate and build several demo FPE systems for our commercial business. Can you give some reasonable estimates as to how efficient these “B cells” are? What are the rated input/output COP energy measurements? I assume there is room for significant improvement after additional RD funding is eventually supplied. Again, my apologies if you have already stated this for the twelfth time, but what kind of products and services does your business plan on selling? Water heaters? Generators? Does your business already market similar products? Is there a website? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Oh, so you will let MY personally do any test she desires with your cells? 2011/12/25 Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com The 2 cells were obtained from an Asian source. They are on loan for 3 months. The source will work remotely with our local uni to get them operational. They output greater than 1 watt with a COP greater than 5. We are funding the work at the local uni. The uni can publish the results from the cells we make locally. The source has received an up front payment. They will receive further funding as the cells are proven to work by the local uni and further funding when our replicant cells become operational. We plan to make our replicant cells available to other FPE researchers. These cells are not capable of delivering a E-Cat or Hyperion level of performance. They are designed to prove FP were correct, the FPE is real, to silence the FPE deniers and drive scientific investigation of the FPE. Our desire is simple. To accelerate the acceptance of the FPE, to get the effect properly understood and to see FPE devices powering our planet. OK, along the way to make a few dollars as well. AG On 12/26/2011 4:15 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Greetings Aussie, and a Merry Down-Under X-Mass to you. I’ve taken advantage of a brief respite between family obligations by sneaking over to my home office for some covert posting. Despite MY's self-defensive tactic of hoping to remain passively ignorant of the issues by demanding you spoon-feed her everything in a neat tidy little package, I believe she is correct on the matter that some of your remarks continue to remain shrouded in obscurity. However, from my perspective, parsing through obscurity is par-for-the-course when attempting to communicate with companies involved in the process of developing new unproven technologies, particularly technologies that hopefully will lead to competitive products. Therefore I shall continue my parsing endeavors in hopes of cutting down on misinterpretation innuendo: The cells we have obtained are electrochemical FPE cells. They are not commercial cells nor were they obtained from any of the sources in Jed's archives, nor current FPE device suppliers such as Leonardo, Defkalion, etc. We have made it openly known that we are in the market for FPE devices. We have been contacted by various sources. Can you clarify whom your supplier(s) are at this time? The content of your message implies (to me) that anonymity is currently preferred. Nevertheless, if you were to name some of those sources would we recognize any of them? One of those agreed to supply us several B grade cells. Not sure what B grade implies here. Does it mean their A cells are of a better quality... i.e.: better COP? If so, what are they planning on doing with the “A cells”… and will you be able to obtain any of them? I flew there, tested their cells and made commercial arrangements to obtain a license and loan of several cells that will enable us to replicate and build several demo FPE systems for our commercial business. Can you give some reasonable estimates as to how efficient these “B cells” are? What are the rated input/output COP energy measurements? I assume there is room for significant improvement after additional RD funding is eventually supplied. Again, my apologies if you have already stated this for the twelfth time, but what kind of products and services does your business plan on selling? Water heaters? Generators? Does your business already market similar products? Is there a website? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: They output greater than 1 watt with a COP greater than 5. Thermal or electrical? And if they output 5x input at a watt level, it should be almost trivial to run them on their own output. A long run without any input power would be quite impressive. Suggestion: close the loop if you want respect.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
That's thermal... 2011/12/25 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: They output greater than 1 watt with a COP greater than 5. Thermal or electrical? And if they output 5x input at a watt level, it should be almost trivial to run them on their own output. A long run without any input power would be quite impressive. Suggestion: close the loop if you want respect. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
We don't own any cells at present. When we finish the replicant stage and we are ready to provide cells to others, MY or anyone else can purchase them. Then MY can do whatever MY desires with the cells MY purchases. AG On 12/26/2011 10:14 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Oh, so you will let MY personally do any test she desires with your cells?
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Why don't you develop it open source? Like RepRap: http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap 2011/12/25 Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com We don't own any cells at present. When we finish the replicant stage and we are ready to provide cells to others, MY or anyone else can purchase them. Then MY can do whatever MY desires with the cells MY purchases. AG On 12/26/2011 10:14 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Oh, so you will let MY personally do any test she desires with your cells? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
They are simple thermal electrochemical cells. We plan to trial various ideas to link a small external heat exchanger so you can flow water in the secondary circuit and do delta temp measurements. AG On 12/26/2011 10:16 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: They output greater than 1 watt with a COP greater than 5. Thermal or electrical? And if they output 5x input at a watt level, it should be almost trivial to run them on their own output. A long run without any input power would be quite impressive. Suggestion: close the loop if you want respect.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
We are moving into this field to make money. We have already invested over $100k to secure the first loan cells and to do the uni work. We expect to recover some those funds from the sale of the FPE replicant cells and other services. We will create a web site and discussion forum where FPE replicant cell purchasers can discuss their findings. Our target price is $500 for 1 of our FPE replicant cells. We will also supply, to cell purchasers, additional cell components, heat exchangers, pumps, temp sensors, data loggers, precision power supplies, etc. While we expect to do some sales into the uni world, the bulk sales will be to private researcher and hobbyist, who will need more equipment support than would a uni. AG On 12/26/2011 10:30 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Why don't you develop it open source? Like RepRap: http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On 11-12-25 07:03 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: They are simple thermal electrochemical cells. We plan to trial various ideas to link a small external heat exchanger so you can flow water in the secondary circuit and do delta temp measurements. I don't understand. That would provide you with a measurement which would show you what the COP was. But you already know the COP, right? So why invest more effort in what's just another COP measurement? Or do you currently know the COP? How was the COP of 5 measured? AG On 12/26/2011 10:16 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: They output greater than 1 watt with a COP greater than 5. Thermal or electrical? And if they output 5x input at a watt level, it should be almost trivial to run them on their own output. A long run without any input power would be quite impressive. Suggestion: close the loop if you want respect.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: We are moving into this field to make money. We have already invested over $100k to secure the first loan cells and to do the uni work. We expect to recover some those funds from the sale of the FPE replicant cells and other services. We will create a web site and discussion forum where FPE replicant cell purchasers can discuss their findings. Our target price is $500 for 1 of our FPE replicant cells. We will also supply, to cell purchasers, additional cell components, heat exchangers, pumps, temp sensors, data loggers, precision power supplies, etc. While we expect to do some sales into the uni world, the bulk sales will be to private researcher and hobbyist, who will need more equipment support than would a uni. That's pretty cheap considering the price of heavy water and palladium. You *are* using deuterium and palladium, right? Otherwise, they are not utilizing the FPE. T
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
So, your aim is not to convince skeptics. That is something secondary in this plan and this is what we would expect from Rossi, DGT anyway. So, you won't get a better result in convincing any skeptics since we will have to wait mcuh longer since you are in a much earlier stage of development. If you wanted to convince skeptics, as a priority, you'd have to do it totally open from day 0 and do not sell any kit, but on the contrary, put instructions on how to build one from scratch on your website. 2011/12/25 Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com We are moving into this field to make money. We have already invested over $100k to secure the first loan cells and to do the uni work. We expect to recover some those funds from the sale of the FPE replicant cells and other services. We will create a web site and discussion forum where FPE replicant cell purchasers can discuss their findings. Our target price is $500 for 1 of our FPE replicant cells. We will also supply, to cell purchasers, additional cell components, heat exchangers, pumps, temp sensors, data loggers, precision power supplies, etc. While we expect to do some sales into the uni world, the bulk sales will be to private researcher and hobbyist, who will need more equipment support than would a uni. AG On 12/26/2011 10:30 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Why don't you develop it open source? Like RepRap: http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
I saw over 1 Watt of excess heat generated with a COP of greater than 5. That needs to be confirmed by our local uni before they can draw down the funding. AG On 12/26/2011 10:53 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-12-25 07:03 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: They are simple thermal electrochemical cells. We plan to trial various ideas to link a small external heat exchanger so you can flow water in the secondary circuit and do delta temp measurements. I don't understand. That would provide you with a measurement which would show you what the COP was. But you already know the COP, right? So why invest more effort in what's just another COP measurement? Or do you currently know the COP? How was the COP of 5 measured? AG On 12/26/2011 10:16 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: They output greater than 1 watt with a COP greater than 5. Thermal or electrical? And if they output 5x input at a watt level, it should be almost trivial to run them on their own output. A long run without any input power would be quite impressive. Suggestion: close the loop if you want respect.
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
I can't discuss the cell technology yet. I can say I consider a Ni-H cell as a FPE device. AG On 12/26/2011 10:53 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: We are moving into this field to make money. We have already invested over $100k to secure the first loan cells and to do the uni work. We expect to recover some those funds from the sale of the FPE replicant cells and other services. We will create a web site and discussion forum where FPE replicant cell purchasers can discuss their findings. Our target price is $500 for 1 of our FPE replicant cells. We will also supply, to cell purchasers, additional cell components, heat exchangers, pumps, temp sensors, data loggers, precision power supplies, etc. While we expect to do some sales into the uni world, the bulk sales will be to private researcher and hobbyist, who will need more equipment support than would a uni. That's pretty cheap considering the price of heavy water and palladium. You *are* using deuterium and palladium, right? Otherwise, they are not utilizing the FPE. T
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: I can't discuss the cell technology yet. I can say I consider a Ni-H cell as a FPE device. But it is not. The reaction is likely unrelated to PdD. T
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
It depends on the theory. The solar process can yield deuterium from protons. 2011/12/25 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: I can't discuss the cell technology yet. I can say I consider a Ni-H cell as a FPE device. But it is not. The reaction is likely unrelated to PdD. T -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
At this moment in time all I have are 2 loan cells. They will be tested at a local uni, which claims to have the necessary people and equipment to do a proper evaluation and to produce a report. When I and others see the uni report, showing the cells have repeated what I saw a few weeks ago, then we will start moving forward to build replicant cells and to make them commercially available. AG On 12/26/2011 10:58 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: So, your aim is not to convince skeptics. That is something secondary in this plan and this is what we would expect from Rossi, DGT anyway. So, you won't get a better result in convincing any skeptics since we will have to wait mcuh longer since you are in a much earlier stage of development. If you wanted to convince skeptics, as a priority, you'd have to do it totally open from day 0 and do not sell any kit, but on the contrary, put instructions on how to build one from scratch on your website. 2011/12/25 Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com We are moving into this field to make money. We have already invested over $100k to secure the first loan cells and to do the uni work. We expect to recover some those funds from the sale of the FPE replicant cells and other services. We will create a web site and discussion forum where FPE replicant cell purchasers can discuss their findings. Our target price is $500 for 1 of our FPE replicant cells. We will also supply, to cell purchasers, additional cell components, heat exchangers, pumps, temp sensors, data loggers, precision power supplies, etc. While we expect to do some sales into the uni world, the bulk sales will be to private researcher and hobbyist, who will need more equipment support than would a uni. AG On 12/26/2011 10:30 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Why don't you develop it open source? Like RepRap: http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
I support McKubre's Conservation of Miracles or as I put it, Different Dog, Same Leg Action ;) AG On 12/26/2011 11:04 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: I can't discuss the cell technology yet. I can say I consider a Ni-H cell as a FPE device. But it is not. The reaction is likely unrelated to PdD. T
