Hum, I rather see the violent square very rich in harmonics, but their focus on "dead time" rather looks like the phenomenon exploit the step and some delays; rather than harmonics and phase...HHT is playing tennis, not music.
Yes Alan, have always said frequency content of control power steps drives LENR reaction! As well as with Rossi at least until self sustaining mode kicked in!
George,
I would be quite happy just to see you wriggle out from this forum.
On another subject. Just working with grandson on Bluetooth autonomous toy Car. Had some trouble with stepper motor board LN 298 & had idea that this would be very easy way for you to get both forward & reverse currents thru your fuel elements heater coils. Its a pulse width device with control of pulse height (power), width (freq content exploration) etc. Rossi just mentioned in his patent that EM frequency content is part of his, my guess, initiation, growth & control of LENR process sites in the fuel element from which he extracts his power. Just an idea FreeThinker, also talked to me356 & Dennis about this possibility of control for replicators. Publishing fuel composition by Rossi in new patent was also a plus. Jim
Thanks all for the feedback. I am in vacation mode today, so I will have to get back to you all on the different items. I managed to scribble a wire diagram to explain where I measure
Think you should consider modification to power supply to get forward as well as reverse currents through the coil like Rossi & Parkhomov do. Think this may be necessary to stimulate, grow & control (ssm) LENR areas in the fuel element. Also look at PCE 380 picture in lugano report as it shows forward & reverse current pulses used by Rossi. He has stated that AC currents are necessary on his blog.
Heat-pressure behaviour in NiH system could be explained by Rydberg matter formation instead of H absorption/desorption in Ni? <img src="http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/wcf/images/smilies/confused.png" alt="?(" />
Many NiH papers I read describes pressure behavior with absorption/desorption, for example:
<a href="http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a>…
With H ions traversing conduction electron & H ions electrons at metal surface & B field stimulating local alternation fluctuations in electron clouds thermal neutrons could be induced with H ions / electron collisions providing observed Ni isotopes etc.
Display MoreI have just now looked over the new Brillouin US Patent Application (it is not a patent at the link given). It is exactly what Thomas Clarke incorrectly accused the Lipinski UGC WIPO Application of being. Unlike Lipinski, this IS a "speculative patent" application. At numersous points the wording is tentative (would, will, could etc). There is little or no description of operational details, in complete contrast to the UGC Application. It is, to be sure, quite different from the Rossi patent application now denied patent status.
The Briillouin / Godes patent appears to fully adopt some version of a cold neutron from proton via electron. Of course this is essentially a form of Widom-Larsen. Nothing wrong with that--- provided one can actually show the transmutations that have been made. Perhaps that was presented earlier in the application process and now withdrawn. If so, it is certainly contrary to my understanding of the purpose of a patent, that is: To enable one schooled in the art to replicate the device and its performance. Unlike Lipinski UGC, there is only the "hand waving" style of theoretical framework, no data from working devices, that I can see, at anywhere near the level required to replicate. I guess we cannot be surprised, since this is simply a patent application--- But not a convincing one, relatively speaking.
The wholesale adoption of Widom-Larsen (Srivastave?) without apparent attribution is curious. It is as though Godes believes he already knew this or that it was somehow "prior art"-- but even in that case the prior art should be cited.
Even though the title mentions "generation" of energy through cold fusion. It is apparently mainly focused on control, with down-regulation means and methods emphasized repeatedly. Far more details on actual implementation of down regulation is given, with the repeated assertion that this is necessary to prevent the lattice from self destruction. Little detail on how specifically to upregulate the thermal or "phonon" output of the "lattice"-- where the reactions are apparently claimed, but not sufficiently mechanistically detailed, to occur. I am curious why a patent application would be so titled as to give it the appearance of being a means to generate excess energy via a low temperature process, when actually the details clearly describe a number of ways of preventing runaway in such a process. For Godes, it appears that external phonons and internal self generated phonons are manifestations of thermal processes. That in spite of the mention and detailing of ultrasound as the mechanistic explanation for at least one of the stimulatory processes, the mechanism devolves and evolves via "phonons". I suspect this may be an attempt ot avoid some issues with the "perpetuum mobile" or perpetual motion machine issue long a rationale for the USPTO to reject CF and LENR type patents.
No mention is made of how one coordinates the longitudinal ultrasonic field motions with the transverse photonic ones. There is little to compare with Rossi here. It has been awhile since I read Rossi's application. I don't want to look at it again... too devoid of disclosures to be even considered as a patent in the US. At least this Brillouin document has some promise as a disclosure of PART of the process at this point, in my opinion of course.
Godes and his IP attorneys should really examine the Lipinski Application to see how it should be done.
I am sure some are wondering if I have any connection to the Lipinskis or to UGC. I have no connections at all. No acquaintences there, no relatives there, no investment with any of the principals or with Unified Gravity Corporations itself. I have never spoken or communicated with them or any of their representatives. I learned of their WIPO application here at the LENR Forum. I have to say it stands far above any other application in this field that I am aware of. And once again, I caution that their Grand Theory, while it may be interesting or even valid, is not the important thing in their work. It is their diverse and frankly fascinating results of many many experiments with many manipulated variables in a rather simple system.
I to was impressed with UGC & their data & mentioned it to Robert who said he was not & pointed out at least one concern he had which I don't recall but can look up if anyone is interested further. It would be nice to have a Godes replication effort set up to provide data lacking so far elsewhere. Think I'll send these comments to UGC to see if we can get them to respond.
Nice find by Ovvious at E-Cat World about IR measurements, what is your take me356? https://twitter.com/JAROVNAK/status/618079627374948352
Slad adds interesting context to this discussion:
A great deal to digest. I particularly like the quantification - the detail.
Really some exellant ideas to ponder & Longviews comments as well - Just a great find Nickec. Jim
Quote from David Nygren: “One question to Erwin Lalik, is there a planning to do this?
Quote from Gerard McEk: “I just scanned the document, but it is clear to me that this peer reviewed report contributes to the high pile of documents showing that…
My friend Robert Godes had this to say after reviewing your document in an emai yesterday, thought this might be helpful. ". These speeds are notoriously running in fits and
starts. It could very well be LENR reactions taking place but under those
conditions they should use a high res amu 1 to 6 mass spec to look for helium
to see if there is LENR occurring. It would also be very interesting to run
highrise icp-ms on the catalytic beads before and after the apparent
observation of excess heat. If they find silicon after that is a good
indication of aluminum absorbing a neutron.
The explosion at Sri that killed a researcher was due to the temperamental
nature of these recombination beads. I also lost at least 12 rupture discs
before solving the problem of the temperamental nature of these beads."
Jim Rovnak
Display MoreIn recent posts Andrea Rossi has mentioned his view that discussing LENR theory in particular ideas that are not well formed or incomplete, on the Internet may harm the public view of LENR.
I myself have raised views on theory and tried to raise discussion on a simple physics approach following an earlier post by Andrea Rossi regarding discussions in the community that in his view were focusing on new physics and ignoring traditional physics.
My very distant and old physics background touched more on space plasma magneto hydrodynamics behaviour in the solar corona and matching macroscopic and microscopic behaviour in the earths bow shock, but it is limited in nuclear physics. Since then my working career has been more of a system engineer. My personal view however is that some aspects of what we see in LENR maybe explained with simple traditional physics principles, but maybe more complicated at system level. Other people have other very interesting ideas that I enjoy reading and trying to understand.
James Rovnak
Your comment is awaiting moderation.June 29th, 2015 at 11:09 PM
IMHO let me try again to educate myself in where the neutrons come from that make the Hot E-Cat power generation possible? Does Santilli also know Andrea?
“Where do Rossi’s neutrons come from to make his reaction & Hot E-Cat power, does Santilli know? https://twitter.com/JAROVNAK/status/615719301186744321 ”
Jim Still trying to discuss the subject, at least I do know they are necessary!
Have a nice evening, everything very quite at MFMP
“Dear friends, we are pleased to announce the newly formed partnership between Open Power and Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, in the spirit of open science and the sharing of results that animates us both. “
I have great respect for Andrea Rossi, however and believe he already has a very good understanding of the processes involved in LENR from his current work with Norman Cook, his earlier work with Sergio Focardi and the data he has since obtained through experimentation. I also appreciate and respect his direct talking even though it can come across hard sometimes, it expresses his real concerns about how people view LENR.
In some ways we are all climbing the LENR mountain but Andrea Rossi and some others are amazingly already close to the peak. They do not need not theory to help him get there. Would it be best to wait for them to get there before discussing the theory? May be then we can look from the top of the mountain.
Can discussion about ideas and theory harm or help views on LENR?
Should discussions about LENR theory be discussed and if so should it be limited to certain forums?
http://kb.e-catworld.com/index…_energy_nuclear_reactions https://petitions.whitehouse.g…ion-lenr-power-generation It's up to you to build support for petitions you care about and gather more signatures. A petition must get 150 signatures in order to be publicly searchable on WhiteHouse.gov. Over time, we may need to adjust the petition signature thresholds, but we'll always let you know what the thresholds are.
James Rovnak
Your comment is awaiting moderation.June 29th, 2015 at 11:09 PM
IMHO let me try again to educate myself in where the neutrons come from that make the Hot E-Cat power generation possible? Does Santilli also know Andrea?
“Where do Rossi’s neutrons come from to make his reaction & Hot E-Cat power, does Santilli know? https://twitter.com/JAROVNAK/status/615719301186744321 ”
Jim Still trying to discuss the subject, at least I do know they are necessary!
Have a nice evening, everything very quite at MFMP
“Dear friends, we are pleased to announce the newly formed partnership between Open Power and Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, in the spirit of open science and the sharing of results that animates us both. “
Display MoreDear Thomas,
Andrea Rossi so far did not publish my comment, nor answered to a direct e-mail with the text attached. Consider that so far he had answered to all my previous e-mails and published all my comments.
But I guess it is worse than that ...
Andrea Rossi, after receiving my e-mail, commented yesterday to Franco Occhipinti:
"I think Umberto Eco is right. I have seen persons that, as you write, have no education at all in any matter polemize with Professors and teach to them how a measurement has to be done, not to mention the clownesque theories that deal with elementary particles as if they were balls of a pin-ball. I have seen persons without elementary mathematical bases polemize with a Nobel Prize laureate, lecturing him in a matter for which he got the Nobel Prize; internet has been a very important revolution, with enormous positive consequences, but this is a negative “counterindication”: the fact that an imbecile, without studying, let alone working, can write stupidities on a matter that most of the readers do not know and consequently make for himself a qualification of expert of that matter, polemizing with Professors even if he knows absolutely nothing of that matter. LENR, with their appearent simplicity, attract many of these clowns. The best thing to do is just ignore them, also because they count nothing, tactically and strategically."
Well I can say that I agree about the presence of many people who criticize about anything ... without knowing what they do ... yes, I experienced that too, even recently ...
But I suspect that among Bob Higgins, you and me there could be someone who is trying to teach Professors (capital letter!) how a measurement has to be done! However let me steal the show for a brief moment because the one with "clownesque theories" about particles could only be me! Hehehe. May be together with Norman Cook and Valerio Dallacasa.
I don't know about you, but in my case I had many IR camera measurements done for me, that I carefully evaluated for the validation and the calibration of industrial numerical models of objects that reach temperature above 1,200 [C] and the thermal history of which depends critically on radiation. In my work I examined many issues like vapour interposition, emissivity, reflections, and so on. And I was at INRIM in Tourin for IR measurement issues on oxides. Similar subject, possible inhomogeneous spectral emissivities. In my work I deal all the time with real and numerically simulated objects that heat up well above 1000 [C], in some cases with speeds of thousands degrees per second. I know quite well how a hot surface looks like.
So if Rossi says: “ ...an imbecile, without studying, let alone working, can write stupidities on a matter that most of the readers do not know and consequently make for himself a qualification of expert of that matter, polemizing with Professors even if he knows absolutely nothing of that matter” and is thinking about me, … well, he is quite wrong. But may be I am too egocentric … hahaha.
In this specific case I would not be surprised to have more experience than some of the Professors of the Lugano test.
And let me comment about the authority of someone with capital letter: Professor. If you argument that you need a Professor to be sure of the correctness of a procedure it means you do not master the subject yourself. I won’t add details of what I know for sure … Pordenone … radiation ...I will just smile alone …
Let us see what happens.
Andrea Calaon
https://disqus.com/home/discus…ad_44/#comment-2097658881
Obvious Gerard McEk • 2 days agoThis argument is valid in most respects, IMO.
What I haven't seen, and is certainly complex to calculate, is the effect of the specular reflection and selective emissivity of the interior (fuel) metals. Although the alumina filters some of it selectively, and diffuses some of it, it also passes the metallic peak emission portion transparently, and mostly invisibly to the camera, and increasingly with rising temperature (albeit strongly dependent on thickness/diffusivity). This includes both direct reflection of the wires back out, dispersed absorption and re-emission back out from the wires, and reflection of the dispersed transmitted IR light from incandescent alumina. This is a consideration in addition to direct emission from the wires, and not including direct heat from a reaction heating the interior (if it even does that). It is possible that this will increase the emissivity factor approximation (used for output calculations) significantly, since the emissivity of the alumina will not be representative of the total band emissivity due to the simultaneous metallic (Al-Li-Ni) spectral emissivity profile, and therefore the temperature dependent emissivity factor will need to be increased because a large portion of the energy emitted is at unmeasured and unaccounted-for (shorter) wavelengths.
The MFMP test with the camera and original Dog Bone came closest to
Obvious, what is you take on asymmetric glow noticed in fuel element. Noticeably in GS3 test I think. i think the micro burst are not necessarily centered but take place about anywhere in fuel element. Some of Rossi's glows were really off center also. DId you notice any of this? Also me356 had TC & IR was any info gleaned from that experiment & would he know something useful?
:beer: Nicely stated. Thank you.
Wizkid
Do you use watts up meter just before pulses going to your fuel element? Can you get a picture of current shape or frequency content like PCE 830 picture in Lugano report? Please let me know when you run test with fuel inside, almost ruined my eyesight looking for (ssm) in last temperature plot, which I think you said was with an un-fueled element just checking out large input pulses from computer code to look for (ssm) when fueled, No? Sure i'm seeing things that couldn't be there unless we are getting a load of action at a distance physics! Jim Good luck!
Display MoreThomas, I don't mind inflaming believers. They need something sharp to jar them into sense.
I started with no preconceptions about Rossi. I wanted to believe he had something real. That's why I became interested in the topic. When the first issues with him were brought up (about wet steam), I expected him to repeat the experiment properly and put all those issues to rest. Certainly, any honest researcher would have done that! Instead, Rossi insulted his critics -- a hallmark of a nut case or a con man. Then, Krivit interviewed Levi and Levi evaded perfectly legitimate questions -- more reasons to doubt Rossi. Then Krivit and later Wright, revealed Rossi's extensive criminal history! Wow! Rossi denied it all but did not give credible explanations. Typical con man. Rossi tried to claim he had a PhD in physics from Kensington University. He did. He bought it without study -- Kensington was a disreputable diploma mill now closed. Then, all the idiotic claims on the misnamed blog "JONP". All the bad tests by the Swedes-- all easily correctible. The evidence for fraud, though circumstantial, is OVERWHELMING! I did not come to this conclusion lightly or superficially or casually.
The reason Rossi got away with it is that scientists, well meaning like you, don't consider fraud as an explanation for unusual and extravagant claims. The overly polite and credulous Swedes will end up looking ridiculous and will lose all credibility as a result along with the other Rossi followers who are in the minority in that they really have scientific credentials. I feel badly about that.
In the face of all the evidence, there is no other logical conclusion to consider than fraud. Or insanity but that is not consistent with the behavior.
BTW, are you comparing what I write to Alain's stuff? With due respect to our host and his commendable desire to allow uncensored debate (for which he deserves praise) -- have you READ his stuff? I don't think it compares with mine not to mention Krivit, Wright, and of course Stephan Pomp. Don't be so hesitant to call out the truth! It is important for those who were fooled, bamboozled and flummoxed by Rossi to understand what happened and how it happened so it is less likely to happen again. That's mainly why I persist about it.
What's your background mary or are you even a women? Some say you are a man hiding there? I watched you sprout off about fraud for years now & never answered you but ponder this with all the micro burst in the literature NOW!
Just think of it this way, fast neutrons gave us the Bomb, thermalized in media such as water they gave us current nuclear reactors, now sub thermalized by surface plasmon politrons (SPP) of Widom & Larsen simplified thinking – electron collides with hydrogen ions at metal surfaces stimulated by EM frequency or frequencies ( Ni / Li) give us sub thermal neutron which can’t travel very far & make almost immediate isotopes such as Ni58 > Ni59 & so on up the isotope chain giving us tremendous power Rossi has tamed in Hot E-Cats, it’s that simple folks – no great mystery just a lot of hard engineering work IMHO! Jim
Please put some technical input behind what you say so I can ponder something different about you & your thoughts. Have you ever worked in a lab, nuclear project, are you retired? I just don't see your facts up front & probably never will, has been my take of you for a long time now. I like the guys that question Lugano with calculations, but even they lead me to wonder what their positive accomplishments are to give me some more bite into what they say.
I'll try not to question your authority further, but it's going to be hard, but I am a patient man who has long waited for truly clean nuclear process having worked with & been disappointed in the first two nuclear products.
Your friend & devoted follower still trying to figure you & yours out. My simple take above makes more sense to me than you or yours but I still admire your spunk!
Display More
The annotated image above may prove interesting to some readers while we await more information.
There is too little information to go very far into analysis.
The wattmeter, is not a part of the circuit, since the mains voltage is not plugged into the socket on the device face. Though it is likely that it normally is a part of the circuit during an experimental run.
The presence of the full wave rectifier seems to indicate DC current supplies the heating wires. Trace the wire in all the pictures and let me know if you think this is an error on my part.
The two holes in the left-most refractory (alligator clips attached ) might allow the shielded thermocouple access - you slide the thermocouple inside.
Clearly this is not the fully wired system under operation.
jrovnakJune 25, 2015 at 6:14 PM
Peter of general interest to us!
Some information from Wizkid replication attempts shared with Rossi Blog just now.
talk with Wizkid
“wizkid James Andrew Rovnak • 9 hours ago
Hello James. Sharp temperature spikes were inserted to find LENR, but NO LENR FOUND yet . Source uses ardruino controller with custom software, optical a/c solid state switching and a full wave 10A bridge rectifier to produce DC that is used to drive the coil load.”
Interesting set up, but I think he needs more TRIAC like freq content to stimulate Lady LENR into more dramatic presence like GS3 test, etc!
We all wait for further testing & a final report with more details to learn more & maybe help Wizkid with ideas & comment of group think, just maybe!
Have a nice day Andrea, just wanted to share this info from Wizkid with the Blog participants.
Some people are already spreading disinformation that this works and shows SSM.
Who needs skeptics when we have such blind believers.
Good luck to the new replicator. Keep sharing your progress.
Liked his power meter. Note all meters have high sample rate DACs to analyze current/voltage inputs for real & imaginary power present, even for TRIAC type noisy spectrum's & that spectrum's harmonics & current trace are fundamental to exciting (ssm) LENR of that I am sure tarun, & every bit of information publicly displayed should be discussed here to further our understanding & offer help & verbal support to those who undertake these arduous experiments, No? The World cries out for this New Fire & the lenrforum supports that cry with reasoned discussion by all - dissenters, critics, do-ers, interested followers, experimenters etc.
http://kb.e-catworld.com/index…_energy_nuclear_reactions
https://petitions.whitehouse.g…ion-lenr-power-generation
I believe in the E-Cat
Looks interesting but the graphs require more explanation. I'll look forward seing his report.
Think Magic could have used a good watts meter on GS3 test. Sanjeev's scatter plots of TRIAC voltage across resistor makes good resistor power estimates vary difficult, if not impossible to obtain. I think the PCE 830 in Lugano report was probably right & have mentioned before gave a nice actual current wave shape & spectrum content which i still believe to be of much significance in developing (ssm) LENR, not sure how EM gets thru tube though but it has to influence formation of Ultra Low Momentum neutron necessary to start & maintain the (ssm) process of that I am sure with my long take on current Nuclear Plants kinetics, control & protection function. Finally we are on the threshold of a new, clean form of LENR to replace the less desirable one.
Since Henry has made me frequency content crazy I like the even higher response Clarke-hess someone mentioned who review Lugano report - https://twitter.com/JAROVNAK/status/613821034635096064
Await your response on power meters?
Jim
PS Just maybe my friend Henry will respond also!
The reason is very different. I have described the reason few posts ago.
JAROVNAK I repeat again these are your useless fantasy and speculation.
You like to speak of nothing but on JONP you will meet many fans can love your daily hoax.
Cheers.
Easy for you to criticize, cost you little, now do something, just maybe? I had a chance when I was younger & did many things, some worked out very well, others not, but I was never a good critic like you of others. I have always enjoyed doing something positive, don't you? Your friend Jim I've even walked away & said nothing when I new there was a problem that my harsh comment in truth could not fix.
Display MoreComparing neon to nickel and palladium: Nickel (Z=28) is a neon (Z=10) structure on top of an argon (Z=18) structure. Palladium (Z=46) is a neon (Z=10) structure on top of two argon (Z=18) structures.
Ne: Z = 10
Ni: Z = 10 + 18
Pd: Z = 10 + 18 + 18
Neon has the symmetrical upper 8 arms where "the magic happens" and is accessible from both sides because it has no argon structure attached to it. Wouldn't neon also be susceptible to hydrogen fusion?
I double checked: the sodium structure in the book (edition 18 feb 2013) differs from the one in the "Atlas of Atomic Nuclear Structures" (1107.0031v1.pdf) I found on the internet. Book is wrong, Atlas from internet is right. (The book contains a lot of spelling errors as well, very annoying)
I tried to explain to some colleagues that the Bohr model is based on wrong assumptions and that there is a new model that fits the experimental data better. It was futile: "everyone in the world agrees on the Bohr model being the only correct model so don't be a smartass". The Bohr model seems hard coded in people's minds. It will take time to convince people, especially scientists. (It would make a great "the big bang theory" tv-series episode where Dr. Sheldon Cooper hears about BSM-SG.)
I'm going to order the main BSM-SG book for more detailed information. A good read during summer vacation.
I can not say who is right for my mind is not that good, but his pictures appeal to me for some time.
Jim
Display MoreWhen a sinusoidal voltage doesn't change its amplitude for dozen and dozen of minutes you are in a STEADY STATE condition and NO harmonics exist, in addition Variac is a low pass filter.
Rossi-Penon test has been performed using the fixed grid frequency they didn't change the voltage for a long time during large part of test and operation.
A smooth voltage step (quite limited changing of Variac position) doesn't produce "huge harmonics" you said and in any case absolutely never comparable with aTRIAC.
Your words "maybe stimulated in the range 20 to 30 hz range..." are still your usual speculations without write any formulas, put levels, numbers or give evidences, just to say something.
"This may have generated a lot of ssm energy during 2012 Hot E-Cat test you referred me..."
ssm energy? Is a new type of energy you studied at your high school?
Maybe more skilled in petitions.
Cheers.
