the costs is fairly significant.(pd, chemicals, specialized C...) The main
cost is "opportunity costs". It takes a LOT of time in material preparations
that would detract me from my existing efforts which seem much more useful and
practical. You get much better results at elevated temperatures with
electrical stimulation.
I will say that several people are attempting replication. I would say wait a
while until the replications are completed. I have been at this long enough
to know that a "one off" is not that significant. Replication is very
important. However, I feel that is only good when done by independent third
parties. It should be noted that the chemical preps are not easy and require
some finesse and risk taking.
Although, if someone is really interested, I would say just start with Case's
material and then heat it-- being sure that there is a volume for convections,
a temperature gradient across the material, and a non trivial B field. If you
recall, the He-4 measures made at SRI was with commercially available Pd in C
in a sphere having a thermal gradient. Measuring exact power levels is tricky
with thermal gradients.
You will want to read Letts' empirical model next month. Basically, the excess
goes about exp. with temp and energy of vacancy of formation, a linear with
mass, and B field.
Again, I have made some material, but would not recommend the time, expense,
and risk for someone just starting. Start with the commercial Pd/C materials
(alfa aesar, 5%- replace water with D2O a few times)
D2
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:42:37 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
From: jabow...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
How much does it cost to get the NI demo device duplicated?
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:14 PM, DJ Cravens <djcrav...@hotmail.com> wrote:
E vs. temp was not done at the demo.
However below are some typical (average) values from some old lab runs.
I did not "calibrate" at the demo. I only showed that the sample was warmer
than the control. That was the only point that was attempted there so there was
no claim of amount of energy but it was around 4 watts. I did not want to
confuse things and there was no time to calibrate. Just one sphere was hotter
than its environment- that was it.
The important point is that excess increases with temperature.
You may want wait till the next issue of IE comes out to see some empirical
models (Letts, in #112) for better data. Letts has fitted hundreds of data
sets.
temp C
excess W
292
0.2
312
0.6
332
1.2
352
3.9
372
6.2
397
7.1
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:27 -0400
It is not clear how any form of energy gain is associated with this experiment.
The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy, but the input function is
not present. It would be educational to have a plot of energy generation
versus temperature.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo
-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Blanton
Jed Rothwell wrote:
> http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf
>> Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. "Can you make me a charger
for my Tesla car?" Charming.
Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the
bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears.
... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you
were)?
