Unless we understand the meaning of the words being used, nothing will
make sense. To make electric power, a voltage has to be created
between two locations so that a current can be made to flow. The
amount of power created is equal to the current times the voltage.
Many ways exist to create a voltage. For example, a thermocouple
creates a voltage but very little power. For the claim to be
important, Rossi needs to show that the configuration actually creates
a voltage AND a current. This can be done using a thermoelectric
convertor, which are easily available. However, the efficiency is too
low for this method to be useful under most circumstances. Until the
actual data is provided, the claim means only that Rossi is attempting
to cause direct conversion, which is a well known process. This claim
does not show anything about the theory of CF.
Ed
On Aug 13, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
http://ecatreport.com/andrearossi/on-rossis-fascinating-emf-discovery
Andrea Rossi recently stated on his blog Journal of Nuclear Physics
that he is currently taking the road to circumventing the Carnot
Cycle. The Italian inventor posted that direct EMF from the reactor
core. EMF or Electromotive Force, according to Faraday’s Law,
represents energy per unit charge (voltage) which has been made
available by the generating mechanism and is not a ‘force’. Rossi
said:
“Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at
high temperature, and we measured it with the very precise
measurement instrumentation introduced by the third party expert,
but we are not ready for an industrial production, while we are at a
high level of industrialization for the production of heat and, at
this point, also of high temperature steam, which is the gate to the
Carnot Cycle.”
Daniel G. Zavela, another poster on JONP website, commented that his
electrical engineer friend found Rossi’s EMF discovery fascinating.
Zavela further stated that his friend has a few questions for Rossi
if his research has found the answers yet.
Here are the three questions and the corresponding answers from Rossi:
Q: If this is not a temperature-dependent phenomenon, why wasn’t it
detected earlier? (it is quite unexpected, so perhaps no one was
looking for it, and the recent discovery was merely a fortunate
accident, as often happens in Science).
A: Matter of Serendipity
Q: What is the strength of the EMF? Milligauss? Dozens of Gauss?
That makes a difference in (a) whether it might be due to something
else going on in the lab, or from the reactor core itself, and (b)
whether there is enough energy in the EMF to provide useful levels
of output power.
A: I prefer not to give precise data until we have not understood
well the “strange power”
Q. What is the internal physical arrangement of the nickel and other
elements in the eCat? I ask this, because I speculate that if there
is some kind of circular layout, it is conceivable that some
subatomic effect has set up a circular electron flow that would
produce an EMF.
A: Confidential
For more than a year now since Rossi announced that he has a working
cold fusion/LENR based device, there have been several speculations
and quite a few of creative inventions. People get easily excited.
However, it is still good to get some confirmation from Rossi’s team
and provide us significant information with evidence.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems
and their SCADA function.
Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field
resulted from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the
meter was influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field. Perhaps
the effect gives off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a
strong magnetic field. Before you provide an explanation, you need
to know EXACTLY what happened. We do not yet have this information.
The information is second hand and hearsay provided by people who
have shown very little understanding of what they have observed in
the past. We NEED better data to believe an observation that
conflicts with the basic ways magnetic fields are generated.
Ed
The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to
interpret.. 1.6 tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that,
unless you just don't want to believe it, that is.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with
1.6 T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual
data. I would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be
surprised to see a 1.6 T magnetic field. The devil is in the
details. Using a collection of ambiguous data to support a novel
theory is not progress. Conventional scientists complain that we in
the field will believe anything, no matter how impossible or poorly
demonstrated. You are proving them right.
Ed
On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor.
Two like systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like
the real thing to me.
If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR,
the also research Rossi's EMF claims.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com
> wrote:
On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton
production.
It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is
not real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error.
What will you say then? How much evidence, Axil, do you require
to believe an amazing claim? You are explaining an amazing claim
using an amazing explanation with neither having any evidence for
being real. Can you see why your claim is not believed?
Ed
What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF
produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the
disintegration of the nucleus.
Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the
anapole magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton.
But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent
in LENR.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com
> wrote:
Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with
conventional, textbook physics and engineering.
In nanoplasmonics, Hot Spots have be experimentally verified to
produce solitons with a EMF power density of 100 terawatts per
cm2 before the sensors blew out.
Not finding this behavior is a result of not looking in the
proper text book.
Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an
important clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that
people who do not believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about
temporarily setting aside this claim. You can always look at it
again if new evidence emerges.
There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher.
An evaluation should not be "all or nothing." You can accept some
claims readily, others with reservations, and still others you
put aside, without prejudice, waiting for better evidence.
A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about
others. Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in
1989. Many physicists dismissed all of their claims because they
got that one wrong. That was a dangerous attitude.
- Jed
