Dave,
You are exactly right - the video is suspicious, and that suspicion is not mitigated by the inventor's demeanor, nor the fact that he is supposedly a Christian minister. But I prefer this Thrapp scenario - to the Rossi's credentials anytime. The biggest problem with Thrapp/Davey is that here we are 4 years later and there is no commercial unit, BUT this situation is little different to Rossi's delay - since AR claimed to be in full production over a year ago. I would not even have mentioned Thrapp - had not the Davey device, with its undeniable similarity, been investigated by Steven Jones with what appear to be positive results. It there is anything to the claim of excess heat, SJ will probably find it. From: David Roberson Does this device operate with standard tap water that has impurities? The mention of an RF resonator in the video has interesting implications if this device actually works. The spherical shape of the unit suggests that it would have resonances at radio frequencies within and some might be closely coupled to the water molecules or atoms to which they are composed. The heating energy must arise from some mechanism since the device appears to warm up at a rate that far exceeds the possible output power of the 9 volt battery. My opinion is that there is some kind of trick being displayed here although there is no proof. Perhaps the 'water' is not really water but some mixture that self heats when triggered by the battery input. The invention needs to be tested with fresh water applied and controlled by the experimenter without interference of the inventor. This test should be run several times in a row to ensure that the metal enclosure does not contribute to the heating as well. I would further carefully measure the time required to heat the fresh tap water during each warm up period to ensure that this is the same while using fresh batteries for each run. One can never be positive that a demonstration such as this is not a magic trick since there are many ways to confuse people. I guess that Rossi has determined that the only way to prove his ECAT to the world is to sell them and he might be correct is that assumption. This device might be another case where that concept is valid. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Nov 20, 2012 12:11 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Steven Jones: Excess heat is real, but probably not nuclear Actually, I think that this is one of the better slide presentations out there this year - in the entire field - despite a few controversial statements and being in need of massive editing. Hats off to Steven Jones to support the Davey device, even though that inventor was nutty - and the prior claims were heavy on anecdote. Both the Davey and Timothy Thrapp spherical hot water heaters have been demonstrated to be way overunity, and operate on what could be a similar principal, and also are the product of inventors who are their own worst enemies. Both tried to hide the role of nickel alloys, but there is also a geometry factor is the sphere or hemisphere, along with recombination (chemical asymmetry). Here is a Thrapp video, and you can probably see note that this inventor suffers from the same Messiah complex as Joseph Newman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06iCfowinUM This paper could be improved considerably and trimmed down to a couple of relevant issues but focusing on this device. Steven Jones does not go far enough in noting that there is more than one completely distinct phenomenon at work in gainful devices which are lumped as LENR. And there is too much emphasis early-on in the slides with muons - which appears to be dead-in-the-water, despite the Star claims (Australia- http://www.starscientific.com.au/). There is no practical way to make muons work IMO ... unless of course. a charged sphere collects them :) In fact, there are at least 5 pathways to gain, some nuclear some not - or more if one includes muons as separate from other catalysis. In the end, it is all about repeatability, and that is THE major problem, even for Celani. The proof for the Davey device is actually stronger than most of LENR, and should not be overlooked because of the eccentricities of an inventor. But it still lacks repeatability, with a number of failed attempts. We can only hope that SJ, who is a thorough and careful experimenter, can dig deeper on this simple device, since it is simple 'like electrolysis', but much more robust (for some important but unknown reason.) Of special interest is slide 17 et al. (NRL from ICCF 17) where he shows the spectacular episodes of 40x gain with alloy electrodes and tell-tale RF emission. It should be noted that Miles found nothing with Rhenium alone (Miles-Co-Deposition-of-Palladium-Paper-ICCF17). In fact, it seems to me now - in retrospect - that there was a strong sub-theme at ICCF-17 on Rhenium. Why? Well, it is group 7 and has massive valence electron flexibility, and is a Mills catalyst - but note that in contrast to Miles we have the results of an Re alloy with Pd that is spectacular, and most of all gives us an RF signature. I think the emphasis on Rhenium in many of these papers is misplaced - and instead manganese should perform better, as both are group 7 - and Re is rarer than palladium where as Mn is cheap ... but anyway - these NRL results are important and beg to be expanded on. Note to Steven Jones, if you monitor this group - try manganese or Ni-Mn alloy on one of the hemispheres and use RF as input. -----Original Message----- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com Steven Jones replica: Pons & Fleischmann XS Heat not from fusion Jones is experimenting with a bell electrode setup that strongly evidences excess (xs) energy and has similarities to the cell presented by Pons and Fleischmann. He says that there are at least two distinct phenomena in these experiments and that "fusion" is not what most of these "CF" or "LENR" types of arrangements exhibit.... http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischman n_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/
