ng stop
them assuming they can
solve the mystery.
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional
analysis.
Mark,
Interesting
Mark,
Interesting story, and maybe it is a premonition of what the lame excuse
from Rossi will be if there is no megawatt demo in October.
Rothwell can whine, hem, and haw all day about how he believes in his
heart-of-hearts that the sordid TEG business with LTI was not a true scam,
but since he
I said:
"Perhaps its because Rossi hadn't given them the proper recipe for making the
TE devices?"
Let me explain a bit more...
I've been following (and occasionally helping) with a colleague's company that
has carbon-based
photovoltaic cells that are consistently getting 40% more power than Sh
Just to clarify, Mark Iverson wrote:
Jones writes:
"Here is a sanitized version of the story cleansed by LTI, but the true grit is
worse than this
sounds. Bottom of Page 5 is where it gets interesting:"
http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo%282004%29.pdf
Frankly, I'd prefer t
Regarding the latest on-going spat between Jed & Jones
...
Jed recently sed:
> ... I suggest you [Jones] treat this more like a scientific discussion and
> less like a legal proceedings, what with "the best available evidence" ...
It's my understanding that Mr. Beene was at one time a lawyer.
Terry Blanton wrote:
The ECat in the reporter's video actually has two H valves of different types.
I noticed that. That's what I was thinking about. I don't know a thing
about them, but the ones used by Miles and Mizuno to study the gas are
uniform and they look like they are of higher quali
Jones writes:
"Here is a sanitized version of the story cleansed by LTI, but the true grit is
worse than this
sounds. Bottom of Page 5 is where it gets interesting:"
http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo%282004%29.pdf
Frankly, I'd prefer to read the unsanitized 'true grit'! Its
Jones Beene wrote:
Then you are essentially blind to his past misdeeds, and essentially pandering,
as I have said repeatedly.
You have said it, but you have not demonstrated how he might fool a
thermocouple or make a flow of water seem to be many times faster than
it is. Machines do not resp
:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional
analysis.
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell
> At this point in time, Rossi's statements, efforts or 'clues' can be argued
> to
>be almost immaterial to further progress in t
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> It does have only one gas connection. I do not know if the stopcocks are
> adequate for the job.
The ECat in the reporter's video actually has two H valves of different types.
T
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell
> At this point in time, Rossi's statements, efforts or 'clues' can be argued
> to be almost immaterial to further progress in the USA, since nothing he says
> can be trusted.
JR ... I see no evidence that he cannot be trusted. Frankly, you seem to
I wrote:
> It does have only one gas connection. I do not know if the stopcocks are
> adequate for the job.
>
As opposed to an electrochemical cell which typically leaks out of several
holes and the lid, or an Arata DS-cathode which has no holes at all. McKubre
had to design a tool to puncture t
I wrote:
> Tritium is easy to detect, but only if you try to detect it. As far as I
> know, no one has. Also, you cannot detect it if it is allowed to escape from
> the cell into the air. You would have to open the cell carefully in a
> controlled environment to capture it.
I should have said "
I've heard He is hard to detect, but leak detectors are portable and quite
common and sound simple enough:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_mass_spectrometer
Maybe they're really really expen$ive or have other problems.
Hoyt Stearns
Scottsdale, Arizona US
-Original Message-
Fro
Jones sez:
...
> My working hypothesis as of May 3, is that spillover
> hydrogen is formed catalytically, at a threshold temperature
> and collects in Nickel nanopores, gaining thermal energy
> from an unknown source at very close to the Curie point of
> the nickel. It is that simple. The reactio
Jones Beene wrote:
JR: How do you know there is no helium, tritium or radioactivity here?
As I said stated: from the "best available evidence" - which is the Swedish
isotopic analysis and the spectrographs in the patent.
I would say the best available is hardly adequate for anything. So far,
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell
> There is no helium here, no tritium and no radioactivity, and NO non-natural
> isotopic distribution, so how could it be nuclear?
JR: How do you know there is no helium, tritium or radioactivity here?
As I said stated: from the "best available e
Jones Beene wrote:
There is no helium here, no tritium and no radioactivity, and NO non-natural
isotopic distribution, so how could it be nuclear?
How do you know there is no helium, tritium or radioactivity here? They
have hardly begun to look. Helium in particular is very difficult to
det
Hi Jones,
>> Yeah, yeah, we know what the nuclear fizicists will say on
>> the matter.
>>
>> What do they know. ;-)
> Well that's it, isn't it ... what do the experts know? Of
> course, one can throw all of nuclear physics out the door,
> but why?
I'm certainly not arguing that we throw present
ing a different
extraction method.
Regards
Fran
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 10:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of
dimensional analysis.
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at
-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
Yeah, yeah, we know what the nuclear fizicists will say on the matter.
What do they know. ;-)
Well that's it, isn't it ... what do the experts know? Of course, one can throw
all of nuclear physics out the door, but why?
Ask yours
>From Terry:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:47 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
> wrote:
>
>> Why not?
>
> You probably recall a test that was done on implants and some material
> which "fell through the roof" in Ufology. That test was an isotope
> ratio test. The claim was that elements originati
That's the mini supernova argument. We don't know what's inside the reactor,
but we know it doesn't resemble a supernova, so we are obliged to assume that
any copper found is just regular copper that migrated. It's way too fanciful to
assume otherwise at this point.
Sent from my iPhone.
On
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:21 AM, noone noone wrote:
> No, you seem to worship Randall Mills of Black Light Power and seem to be on
> this forum for one purpose, to push an anti-Rossi agenda.
Actually, Jones is quite skeptical of RandEll's theories. That
doesn't mean Dr. Mills is *all* wrong.
T
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:47 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
wrote:
> Why not?
You probably recall a test that was done on implants and some material
which "fell through the roof" in Ufology. That test was an isotope
ratio test. The claim was that elements originating outside our star
system
No, you seem to worship Randall Mills of Black Light Power and seem to be on
this forum for one purpose, to push an anti-Rossi agenda.
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, May 3, 2011 6:22:14 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common
Correct me if I have misunderstood the most important relevant facts
being debated here, but I believe Jones is making a strong claim that
the percentages of isotopes allegedly found distributed throughout the
copper found within one of Rossi's used e-cats clearly indicates that
the "Rossi-effect"
From: noone noone
*
* The natural isotope ratio issue is not an issue at all.
Of course it is an issue. IT IS THE MAIN ISSUE as to the identity of the
type of reaction.
* Copper was found. There is no source of copper inside the reactor other
than transmutations.
Wrong. Re
not work
like hot fusion, and they refuse to accept that.
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 7:59:43 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional
analysis.
From:noone noone
Ø The proof is
From: noone noone
* The proof is the copper produced by nuclear transmutations.
No absolutely not. The natural isotope ratio means just the opposite. It means
that this CANNOT be a nuclear reaction.
* Once again, those scientists did not have a probe inside of the reaction
ves
, May 2, 2011 7:36:49 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional
analysis.
From:noone
> The E-Cat is producing nuclear reactions.
You have amply demonstrated your ignorance on this subject. If it is producing
nuclear reactions where is the proof?
Onl
From: noone
> The E-Cat is producing nuclear reactions.
You have amply demonstrated your ignorance on this subject. If it is producing
nuclear reactions where is the proof?
Only a fool would take Rossi’s word over the fine study by V&B ….
Jones
*“Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”*
On the contrary, it is perfect. Is that possible? What angel let this thing
through the gates of heaven?
*“The E-Cat does not produce Tritium or any other radioactive waste.”*
Is it possible that some flaw has been overlooked? I have not
In reply to noone noone's message of Mon, 2 May 2011 19:03:56 -0700 (PDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>The fact is that none of the E-Cats tested have ran out of hydrogen fuel. They
>have all kept working until they were turned off. To say that an E-Cat only
>produces less than a hundred times the energy of bur
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 2 May 2011 16:11:31 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Well it is a big surprise, if it is exact.
I assume you mean if the "16" is exact. No it isn't. To start with, it's highly
unlikely that all Hydrinos would shrink to exactly the same level, though it is
possible tha
x27;s technology is
purely a hydrino technology is getting old.
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 2:44:08 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional
analysis.
From:Axil Axil
Ø One gr
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 2 May 2011 20:59:42 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>It is much too early to reach any conclusions about any of this. We do not
>even know if this produces tritium, but only that the Pd-D system
>does, occasionally.
But that's to be expected, because T is frequently
:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional
analysis.
The leakage of hydrogen argument is a good new bad news explanation.
If hydrogen leaks out of the Rossi reactor with little or no resistance, then
this “good news” can explain and justify the theory
Axil Axil wrote:
> Your caviler attitude toward conforming to the world wide nuclear
> regulatory infrastructure is counterproductive to the commercialization of
> cold fusion.
>
> This attitude worries and saddens me.
>
It is much too early to reach any conclusions about any of this. We do not
Jones Beene wrote:
> Neither does Mills’ devices – but Rossi should know after these many months
> of testing and thousands of reactors, the average consumption within a close
> range, and even if it leaks out twice as much as it consumes . . .
>
I do not see how he would know this, unless all o
Jones Beene wrote:
> However, the Swedes at least are backing off the high power numbers and
> these cells are probably in the range of 2500 watts if Mats' numbers are
> correct.
>
No one has backed off from any high power numbers as far as I know. There
have been no retractions.
- Jed
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> Neither does Mills’ devices – but Rossi should know after these many months
> of testing and thousands of reactors, the average consumption within a close
> range, and even if it leaks out twice as much as it consumes - based on that
> and the
This makes no sense. All tritium is radioactive.
Where does the hypothetical tritium in the Rossi reactor come from?
You seem to be confusing tritium with the hydrino.
You do understand the Mills' hydrino theory, no? It does not involve tritium
and neither does Rossi's reaction.
If there is no tritium, then there is no need for tritium regulation.
If the Rossi reactor does not produce tritium, then it does not require
regulation. If its does not produce tritium then the Rossi reaction would be
a different type of reaction manifest than other cold fusion reactions.
Non ra
Well it is a big surprise, if it is exact.
However, the Swedes at least are backing off the high power numbers and
these cells are probably in the range of 2500 watts if Mats' numbers are
correct.
BTW - the cells could not be leaking very much hydrogen at all - if they are
able to fill once, and
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Tue, 03 May 2011 08:55:06 +1000:
Hi,
[snip]
>Perhaps coincidentally this coincides with a
>Hydrino level of 16
not exactly the best choice of words :(
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 02 May 2011 17:56:14 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>The Rossi cell did not peter out in this test. It did not stop producing
>energy. For all anyone knows, it might have gone on for months, or
>years. Supposedly some cells have run for months. So you cannot draw an
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 2 May 2011 17:26:54 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>However, the Cat-E will leak tritium with a vengeance and produce tritiated
>water. *Tritiated water* is a form of water where the usual hydrogen atoms
>are replaced with tritium.
What makes you think the E-cat produce
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 2 May 2011 16:13:20 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>If the Cat-E can run for 6 months without shutdown, then about 180 grams of
>hydrogen enter the Cat-E. Where does it all go?
..once it has been converted into Hydrinos, it can leak out through the walls.
Regards,
Rob
You are completely off base, Axil. Do you not know Mills' work at all?
It is NOT nuclear. There is NO tritium. There is NO problem with any
regulation.
Please - for you own edification, do your homework and read and learn CQM
before making silly comments like this.
Jones
From: Jed Rothwell
* The heating value of H2 is 130 kJ/g which is equal to .04 kWhr. This
seems to work out to the Rossi reactor being about 65 time more than
chemical. A nuclear reaction should be about one million times more
energetic, and a Millsean reaction should be about 200 times.
>
Your caviler attitude toward conforming to the world wide nuclear regulatory
infrastructure is counterproductive to the commercialization of cold fusion.
This attitude worries and saddens me.
There is no doubt; no exceptions will be made in the licensing requirements
of the Rossi Cat-E as a nucle
Jones Beene wrote:
The heating value of H2 is 130 kJ/g which is equal to .04 kWhr. This
seems to work out to the Rossi reactor being about 65 time more than
chemical. A nuclear reaction should be about one million times more
energetic, and a Millsean reaction should be about 200 times.
Th
Axil Axil wrote:
The leakage of hydrogen argument is a good new bad news explanation.
If hydrogen leaks out of the Rossi reactor with little or no
resistance, then this “good news” can explain and justify the theory
behind Rossi’s explanation (aka hydrogen-nickel fusion).
However, the Cat-E
From: Axil Axil
* One gram of hydrogen per day is a HUGE amount of hydrogen inputted into a
closed system and consumed.
* Where could it all be going?
It is really difficult to seal against leaks of pressurized H2 with top
quality equipment and this appears to be far from top quality
The leakage of hydrogen argument is a good new bad news explanation.
If hydrogen leaks out of the Rossi reactor with little or no resistance,
then this “good news” can explain and justify the theory behind Rossi’s
explanation (aka hydrogen-nickel fusion).
However, the Cat-E will leak tritium with
Axil Axil wrote:
Jed you are doing well, now tell me how the other 30 elements are formed?
No idea, but bear in mind that things tend to leak out of pressurized
tanks, not in.
- Jed
Also, by the way, knowing Rossi as I do, that estimate of 1 g per 24
hours probably means something like:
"~1 gram every day or every week, whenever we get around to checking,
but it might be one-tenth gram because we measure the entire tank with a
weight scale."
Rossi is not the kind of per
Jed you are doing well, now tell me how the other 30 elements are formed?
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Axil Axil wrote:
>
> One gram of hydrogen per day is a HUGE amount of hydrogen inputted into a
> closed system and consumed.
>
>
>
> Where could it all be going?
>
>
Axil Axil wrote:
One gram of hydrogen per day is a HUGE amount of hydrogen inputted
into a closed system and consumed.
Where could it all be going?
Some of it is absorbing into the metal hydride, and some is leaking out
of the cell into the air.
It would only be a huge amount if it were
Axil,
I like your systematic break down of the process.
I sure don't know WTF is going on! ;-)
I luv a good mystery.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
61 matches
Mail list logo
