|
Холодный ядерный синтез
| |
| newenergy | Дата: Понедельник, 07.03.2011, 09:25 | Сообщение # 1 |
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| Flow Calorimetric Measurements of Interaction of
H2, D2, He with Nano-coated Wires of Ni and
Pd-Alloy at Temperatures up to 850°C Francesco Celani(1), M. Nakamura(2), O. M. Calamai(1), A. Spallone(1), A. Nuvoli(1),
E. Purchi(2),V. Andreassi(1),B. Ortenzi(1), E. Righi(1), G. Trenta(1), A. Mancini(3). 1) Istit. Naz. Fis. Nucl., Lab. Naz. Frascati, Via E. Fermi 40, 00044 Frascati-Italy.
2) ISCMNS, Rome#1 Group, Via Lero 30, 00129 Rome-Italy.
3) ORIM SpA, Via Concordia 65, 62100 Macerata-Italy. Collaboration with:
• G. Mariotti, F. Tarallo, A. Bianchi, E. Paganini. Enel Engineering and Innovation SpA, Via Andrea Pisano 120, 56122, Pisa –Italy.
• U. Mastromatteo. STMicroelectronics, Via Tolomeo 1, 20010 Cornaredo (Mi)-Italy.
• D. Garbelli. Pirelli Labs, Viale Sarca 222, 20126 Milano-Italy.
• L. Gamberale. MOSE SrL, Viale Montegrappa 20, 27029 Vigevano (PV)-Italy.
• A. Takahashi, Technova Inc. Tokyo-Japan.
• A. Kitamura. Dept. of Engineering, Kobe University-Japan ICCF16, Chennai (India), February 6-11, 2011 OUTLINE
Progress on nano-coated wires and experimental set-up 1) 2008-2010 (March). Several experiments with three thin (50m) and long (60-90 cm) wires (1 in Pd, 2 in Pt), one of them (i.e. Pd) nanocoated with multiple materials (Pd included), multi-layer approach. Multiple nano-coating performed by simple, but time consuming, chemical-physical treatments up to temperatures as large as 800oC in free air. Isoperibolic calorimetry, fully SS large volume (about 3 l) reactor.
* Braid geometry of wires, glassy sheaths for electrical insulation of the wires.
T_wires <550oC, Pd-D2 (as main active gas), tested also H2.
* Performed several calibrations by He and He-Ar mixtures, Ar, Air, Vacuum, even
changing the gas pressures (1-10Atm) because isoperibolic calorimetry.
* Longitudinal current density along the wires, because electro-migration purposes, up
to 45-50 kA/cm2.
* Maximum excess power detected was 5W at 500 oC, maximum power density was
400W/g of Pd.
2) April 2010-June 2010.
* Changed the Pd nano-coated with Ni. Added another Ni wire, as internal reference,
not nano-coated. In-situ cross check of behaviours between Nano-Coated and Virgin
Ni wire. Usual Pt wire as “general purposes” control.
* Added a type K thermocouple (not gas permeable by SS cover, electrically insulated
by MgO) as the main reference about temperatures.
* Changed the reactor vessel from SS to tick borosilicate glass and reduced the volume
of an order of magnitude (i.e. from about 3 to 0.3 l).
* Improved the quality of glassy sheaths, specially developed for long time operations at
high temperatures (600 oC). De-facto used up to about 900 °C.
* Kept the isoperibolic calorimetry configuration to have short time to thermal
equilibrium (15-25m).
* Obtained remarkable results about: fast and large H loading on Ni coated, excess
power values (up to 26W at 850oC) and power density (up to 1800W/g of Ni).
June 2010-September 2010.
* Changed the operation of reactor from isoperibolic to flow.
* Drawback: The equilibrium time was too long (over 4 h): only few experiments (2, or at
the best 3 per day possible) were possible to perform. With isoperibolic method the
experiments were over 10/day.
* Changed the sheaths from glassy to pure quartz because detected some damages
(irregular sticking to wire surfaces, not short circuitry) of the previous one.
Some excess heat (at low intensity, about 5% at maximum), detected only after
several cycles of loading/deloading. Maximum input power 180W.
* No sticking at all of sheaths on Ni wires. Open question: the sticking of glassy material
(SiO, B, CaO) on Ni surfaces can be “beneficial”? 3) October-December 2010.
* Improved largely the reactor vessel geometry and ancillary equipments in order to
reduce the equilibrium time from 4 h to 20-25 m, keeping the flow calorimetry regime.
* Developed a new kind of coating with the addition of Gadolinium aimed to detect the
effect of very different neutron cross section (at 10E-5 eV) of capture of such multi-
isotope element (e.g. 156Gd, 20.47%, 10E+2 barns; 157Gd, 15.65%, 10E+7 barns).
* Changed the sheath from pure quartz to Alumina, able to operate up to 1100oC.
*Wires as usual 2 of Ni (one nano-coated) and 1 in Pt.
* Detected (by R/Ro measurements) modest Hydrogen absorption and not stable.
* Detected some excess heat (3-8%) of input power (up to 150W) only after several cycles
of loading-deloading, specially at temperatures larger than 650oC.
* Detected, by ICP-MS, large reduction (up to a factor 30) among used and not-used wires,
of some specific elements adopted for the coating. Similar behaviour found also on
experiments made on April, but at lower intensity. 4) December 2010-February 2011.
Modified the glass reactor “head”, connectors and feed-through in order to collect also the gas produced: to be analysed after each series of experiments (up to one week each) by RAG (Residual Gas Analyser)=>needed very low level of gas leakage from the reactor.
Work in progress: technical difficulties heavier than expected. It was necessary, even, to design new type of gaskets (enhanced elasticity geometry) able to withstand both large thermal variations and vacuum-pressures (10 Atm.) conditions, with easy-leaking gas like H2, D2, He.
As a consequence, the measurements with Pd-Y alloys, Deuterium gas, were not yet started. SORRY!
I will send detailed report of the experiments to all of You, by pdf file,
as soon as we will finish. Motivation, and key points, of new experiment with Ni in respect to Pd. 1) Ni (under suggestion of Enel) was studied because low cost and, claimed (by F. Piantelli and recently also by S. Focardi-A. Rossi), working even with H2. General approach of experiment was to use, as much as possible, the same overall materials, coatings (nano-materials, multilayer, two main kinds of materials) and measurement procedures as previously adopted for Pd wires by us (239°ACS, S. Francisco-USA, 20-25 March 2010). 2) About excess heat anomalies, if any, in these experiments was used again the isoperibolic procedure because the possibility to perform several measurements in short time (about 30m). Drawback is the necessity to re-calibrate the system changing the gas composition (He, H2, D2, Ar, Air; mixtures: He-Ar, H2-Ar, D2-Ar). As expected, the dependence of thermal dissipation of the system, expressed as the ratio of temperature difference between the core of the reactor and the external wall, divided the input power, depends very weakly by gas pressures. Very recently, in a second series of experiments and new Ni wire (different coating) was used also flow-calorimetry (but equilibrium time over 4h).
3) Main modifications, in respect to previous Pd experiments, were: a) changing the Pd with Ni (same of 50m) but length increased from 60 to 82 cm to compensate for lower density of Ni (8.9g/cc) in respect to Pd (12g/cc): kept constant the wire’s weight of 14mg;
b) changing the reactor vessel from SS to borosilicate (Schott Duran) glass avoiding the
problems of S (surface’s poison for H2 absorption) coming out from SS wall (cfr.
Tatsumi Hioki report at ICCF13);
c) adding a second Ni wire, not coated but only, by high temperature-short time cycles,
stresses released: used as, in situ, comparison of behaviours in respect to the Ni coated
(in Pd experiments the comparison were made using Pt wires);
d) increasing the maximum operating temperatures from 500 °C up to 900°C;
e) the braids of Ni wires (each electrically insulated by glass sheaths) were inserted inside a
Cu tube (12-10mm), used as IR mirror, where (in the middle) was located a, type K
(electrically insulated by MgO and gas tight by SS sheath) thermocouple.
Principle of measurements * The procedure of measurements, aimed to detect thermal anomalies, if any, is based giving electric power (Joule heating) alternatively to the “active” element and later to the “reference” one, before in inert gas (4He) and later in active (D2, H2). Several test were made using the previous gas added with large amounts (30-60%) of Ar in order to increase the wire temperature at constant input power. Equilibrium temperatures were recorded versus applied power. * In the case of previous Pd experiments the active element was a Pd wire nano-coated and the reference was a Pt wire. * In the case of present Ni experiments the active element was a Ni wire nano-coated and the
reference was a Ni wire “virgin”, i.e. without nano-coating. Both, coming by the same spool,
were of high purity (>99%, Good Fellow; provided by Pirelli Labs.-Italy in the framework of previous joint experiments in CMNS).
INTRODUCTION
(history&motivations) * Since 2005 we developed, at Frascati National Laboratory of National Institute of Nuclear Physics (Italy), a procedure that “collects” all together the advantages of methods that were proved (by other Scientist and ourselves) to be beneficial to induce “anomalous effects” due to the close interaction of Hydrogen [H] and its isotope Deuterium [D] (Tritium can’t be tested at high concentrations because safety problems) with specific materials (mainly Palladium, Pd). * Moreover, we experienced that the anomalous effects happen at macroscopic level only when the system is under some non-equilibrium condition (spontaneous and/or forced). Such specific condition was discovered by us since 1993 and remarked continuously: during Conferences and/or by written reports. It was addressed both to specialist readers (by Science journals) and general people (by reports in magazine and/or news paper); even given talks to Politicians, Industrials, Students, membership of cultural organizations (like Lions or Rotary club). * Again, we recall that the non-equilibrium status is one of the necessary conditions but, by itself, doesn’t guarantee the generation/detection of anomalous effects that we are looking for (i.e. thermal and/or nuclear): they are need, at the same time, large amounts of H and or D inside the “lattice” of active material and/or at its surface. * The key point, that is the “integral” of our experimental, long lasting time (now 21 years) work, is the following (at least, in the case of D-Pd system): It is necessary to “move” the Deuterium, at an amount as large as possible
and as fast as possible, through the Pd lattice.
It is not important the direction of the atomic flux:
loading or de-loading cycles gave similar effects.
Forced de-loading, intrinsically faster, gave larger values of anomalous heat.
The first report about anomalous heat in loading and deloading Deuterium through Pd lattice came from NASA (Technical Report #122430, Dec. 1989, G. Frelick et al.).
Origin of new INFN-LNF procedure. In short, in order to achieve the “fast moving” (at high D/Pd or H,D/Ni ratio), in situations as reproducible as possible, we developed a hybrid procedure based on the following effects: a) Electromigration (EM), at quite large current density (longitudinal up to 45 kA/cm2), along long (l=50-100cm) and thin (=50m) Pd wires (R=0.5 Ohm*cm). The EM effect in Pd-H system was developed, since 1929, in Germany by several Scientist. Starting from 1993 we largely improved the original EM procedure by introducing pulsed regimes (few s duration, peak current up to 150A): it was possible to increase the peak current density through the wires (since 1995) from 50 kA/cm2, in DC conditions, up to values as large as 300 kA/cm2, without increasing the mean power applied. Using proper repetition rates (5-33 kHz) the self de-loading of D2, between pulses, was kept under control (PLA, 1996). b) Large voltage drops (50-100 V) along the Pd wire. They are consequence of: large EM currents, high resistivity of deuterated Pd, high temperatures (like 500oC or higher in our most recent gas experiments). According to Giuliano Preparata’s (Milan University-Italy, 1995) theory, large voltage drops along Pd wires, together with other specific experimental conditions, have the peculiarity to increase the D/Pd ratio because “coherence effects”. Preparata studied only electrolytic cells and not pressurised (Pt anode, electrolyte LiOD): maximum temperature of cathode Pd wire <<100oC. c) Use of, Pd based, nanoparticles. The first Researcher that exploited in details the effect of nanoparticles, in CMNS experiments, from the point of view of increased Deuterium loading and generation of anomalous effects, was Yoshiaki Arata (Osaka University, 1993). Recently (since 2005, using an innovative Pd-ZrO2 alloy) Arata get anomalous heat, in a fully reproducible way, for time as long as 2 days: D2 gas up to 60 Atm. d) Experiments of Arata were independently reconfirmed (2008) by Akito Takahashi-Akira Kitamura group (Technova Inc.-Kobe University collaboration, Japan): even used “commercial” material produced by a Company (Santoku Corporation, Kobe) experts in precious metals and RE purification. Such experiment was a milestone: broke, once forever, the historical problem of transferred irreproducibility in CMNS experiments. e) Use of multi-layer: two elements (CaO-Pd) were deposited (like sandwich), at nano-metric size, over a bulk Pd plate (procedure developed by Yasuhiro Iwamura, since 2000, at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Yokohama-Japan). The aim of the experiment was to demonstrate the “transmutation” of selected elements (from Sr, Cs, Ba), deposited in the outermost side of the multilayer, to new one (respectively Mo, Pr, Sm), due to the effect of flowing D2 gas in a slightly (max 2 Atm) pressurised chamber at mild temperatures (up to 80oC). Iwamura used (advanced) ion beam technology for the multi-layers construction. f) We experienced, since 1998, in electrolytic environments and using innovative electrolytes (like salts of Ca, Sr, Ba) at very low concentration (<0.1mM) and mild acidic pH, that some times, specially after several cathodic-anodic cycles, the Pd wire was covered by a sub-micrometric layer of several elements, Pd included. Because the spontaneous developing of such porous and very thin layer (like a sponge) the characteristics of D2 absorption changed dramatically and the loading time was reduced of several order of magnitude (from hours to minutes) even, and specially, at low current density of electrolysis (about 10-20 mA/cm2). We observed correlation between increasing the amounts of thermal effects and the arising of compositional anomalies (detected by SEM-EDAX and, later, by ICP-MS). We realised that the origin, or cause, of anomalies arose from such “fractal/sponge” layers. We published several reports about such observations although the situation was quite frustrating: any attempt to build, on demand, the layers failed. In short, it was “spontaneous”, very delicate and easy to self-destruction. Both the Sr and Ba salts, together with Th and B were used in
most recent experiments. Boron was introduced firstly by us, in Cold Fusion experiments, since 1993 (Pd plates developed in a joint collaboration with Tanaka K.K.-Japan).
The new approach to fractal and nano-layer construction * Because of the spontaneous self-assembling/growing of sponge materials at the surface of Pd wire (due to electrolysis with their cathode-anode cycling) was out of a real control, we moved to another completely different direction. * In short, we moved from liquid electrolysis to gas environment. One of the main aims was to avoid uncontrolled self-dissolution, due to the electrolytes and local pH changing (because of the cathode-anode different regimes) in the volume closest to the wire surface, of the peculiar sponge material. We prepared the sponge material over the wire, in controlled way, before the insertion of it in the reactor. * We adopted the innovative procedure of coating intrinsically active supports (like Pd and now Ni, planned also Ti, with their alloys, under H2 and/or D2 gas) with nano-materials (used mainly as anti-sintering agent) containing also Pd at very low dimensions. * The nominal dimension of such nano-material, in most recent experiments, was 6-9 nm. * The active support is a Pd (now Ni) wire thin (=50m) and long (60-90 cm). We chose to get full advantages of both the, previous quoted, electro-migration and Preparata effects. * The total number of layers, made by (simple) physical-chemical deposition procedures, is quite large (about 50) so that the apparent increase of thickness of main wire is 1-2m. * The coated wires were reacted/conditioned/stabilised by several (high) temperatures cycling (20->900->600->20°C), using Joule heating in air (J up to 35 kA/cm2), with specific both time patterns and current ramps. * The wire was inserted inside, electrically insulated, porous glass (recently quartz) sheaths. In such a way were avoided both short circuitry and was possible to do, in-situ, calibrations (by another similar, in principle inert, Pt wire of same geometrical dimensions and quite similar specific resistance). Key characteristics of nanocoated Pd and Ni wires 1) The loading time (to R/Ro=2, i.e. D/Pd=0.75), using a pressure of H2 or D2 gas of about 6.5bar, was of the order of only 6-30 seconds. We used the loading time as a marker of quality of the sponge we build: as shorter as better. In the case of Ni coated, at RT, the loading time was 150 seconds. The Ni not coated (called Virgin) didn’t absorbed H2. 2) The de-loading time, using vacuum, is quite long and depends on the “quality” of nano-materials deposited on the Pd (or Ni) surface: as a general behaviour, as short was the loading time as long, and difficult, will be the de-loading procedure. Several times it was necessary to reach, under vacuum, by Joule heating, temperature as high as 350-400°C for time as long as 1-2 hours, to get a “full” de-loading. Anyway, even after such heavy de-loading conditions, we can’t guarantee that the 100% of previous H2 or D2 absorbed left out from the bulk Pd and/or the specific sponge surface. Qualitatively similar effects were observed with Ni, even tough with low reproducibility.
3) The effect of 2), important to our specific purposes, was observed since 2002 even in electrolytic experiments: we named it the “Diode Effect” (i.e. unidirectional). In the electrolytic experiment, with our big surprise, the Pd wire get self-loading just absorbing the small amounts of Hydrogen and/or Deuterium previously dissolved in the water (and/or in mixed water-ethyl alcohol solution that was adopted at that time). Such phenomenon happened after the anodic stripping procedure ended. For sake of calculation, the value of D2 dissolved in water was about 1.46*10-5 moles/mole of water at 298 K. The electrolytic cell contained about 25-50 moles of solution and the Pd wire weight was 15 mg, equivalent to about 14.1*10-5 moles. Resuming, the amount of D2 dissolved was 5-10 times larger of that needed to get a value of D/Pd of as large as 1. 4) As conclusions of (1, 2, 3) the “good” wires/sponge of Pd adsorb very easily the H2 (or D2). Once absorbed, such gases are very difficult to be fully de-absorbed. In the case of Ni, the absorption was observed only on nanocoated wires: no absorption at all was observed in Virgin wire.
Ni wire history (best experiment)
File: 28Apr10: Vacuum TIME=69326 4He(@6.5Atm) Power (6 48)W
Vacuum
TIME=403046 H2(@6Atm)=> High loading (R/Ro_max=1.92)
first cycle Power (367)W
TIME=431256 First Exc=0.85W@48W input Vacuum air&heating (->300°C) Vacuum (->600°C) TI ME =588586 D2(@6.3Atm) Power (6.3182) W Fle:06Mag10-14-53 TI ME =353475 Exc=2.5W@170W input
TI ME =358793 Exc=5.7W@182W input TIMER=414073 Mixture Ar(@1.90Atm)+D2(@4.75Atm)
Power (17.5158) W
TIMER=534753 Exc=4.2W@158W input
File:13Mag10 Vacuum TIMER=2835 Air heating to T=(304003050030700)oC
Vacuum TIMER=25295 H2(@6.5Atm) second cycle Power (38.7188)W
and several cross-check measurement TIMER=27685 Exc=4.4W@38.9W input
TIMER=33125 Exc=8.9W@62.08W input
TIMER=116215 Exc=12.3W@188W input TIMER=438210 Mixture Ar(@2.67Atm)+H2 (@3.94Atm)
Power (8.5148)W
and several cross-check measurement TIMER=535355 Exc=2.7W@78.8W input
TIMER=609595 Exc=4.7W@124.5W input
TIMER=636985 Exc=10.0W@147W input
TIMER=719755 Exc=17.8W@149W input
TIMER=978835 Exc=23W@168.2W inp The new, thick glass, reactor:
Drawings and Photo
SEM Analysis, Pd and Ni, virgin and used samples Pd virgin PdO virgin Pd coated no D2 Pd coated D2
Ni coated after gas treatments Ni coated after gas treatments Pixe Analysis Experiment with Nickel that gave the best result (April-May 2010 at INFN-Italy) PIXE measurements performed at:
Dept. of Eng. Kobe Univ.-Japan
(A. Kitamura and A. Takahashi)
ICP-MS Experiment started on Apr.28, 2010
(at ENEL, Pisa-Italy)
ICP Measurements on Ni coated also by Gd. Experiment ended December 10, 2010,
Analysis started on December 17, 2010. (ENEL, Pisa) Conclusions 1) The Ni wire nanocoated, after several loading-deloading and thermal high temperatures cycles, at very high temperatures (900°C) and under electromigration current of the order of 40-45 kA/cm2, showed an excess power, in respect to a similar “Virgin” wire with the same applied power (148W), of about 26W. The (main) gas atmosphere was Hydrogen added of Argon (ratio 60/40) at a pressure of 6 Atm at RT. Perhaps some residual D2, stored inside Ni lattice (and/or at surface multi-layer) because previous experiment, could be effective. 2) Some compositional and isotopic anomalies were detected by PIXE and ICP-MS analysis. Some of such anomalies are so large that it is difficult to think they can arise from systematic or static errors. As a general trend, by ICP-MS analysis, in the case of elements with several isotopes (B, Sr, Ba), the rate of DECREASING is larger for lighter isotopes. A special situation happened for Pd coating: it seems reduced (about 5%) Mass 105 (isotopic abundance 22.3%) and largely (about 9%) increased Mass 102 (isotopic abundance 1%). 3) The largest value of excess power density detected with Ni was as large as 1800W/g of Ni at a wire temperature of about 900°C. In comparison, the best result obtained by us, using Pd-D system, was 400W/g at 500°C. 4) Important aspects of Ni wires (according to our experiments), in respect to Pd, from the point of view of future technological applications, are better mechanical proprieties versus thermal and loading-loading cycles. 5) Further work, perhaps “giant”, is needed to improve the reproducibility of the results with Ni because, up to now, the difficulty to induce large H2 or D2 absorption inside Ni lattice are really “big”. Just as example, after coating our Pd wires, it is strange if the wire will not give some excess power, at least at low intensities. In addition, the very nice curve of R/Ro variation according to D/Pd (or H/Pd) ratio, is a powerful tool for immediate, (i.e. real time) understanding.
6) Experiment with Ni-Gd. It is very intriguing the fact that, after the experiment, some elements of the coating are strongly reduced (Sr, Ba, Gd, Th; factor of the order of 30) others remained unchanged (Pd) and another disappears almost completely (B). Because multy-layer procedure of coating, it is very unlucky that such effect is due to simple “mechanical” origin (stress of the wire inserted inside the braid). Moreover, about Pd, there were large differences, about isotopic concentrations, in respect to the experiment of 28Apr2010 that gave large excess heat. 7) Another speculative aspect on last experiment is the fact that the, supposed pure, Alumina sheath, de-facto was discovered, later, that had some Gallium (at 20ppM concentration) as main impurity. Such element, according to some Researchers, has the uncommon characteristic of make “brittle” the materials similarly to Hydrogen (and Deuterium) absorption behaviours. Such aspect could explain the reason that, after several loading-deloading cycles at high temperatures, even the Pt wire showed some anomalous heat and measurable Hydrogen absorption.
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| |
| newenergy | Дата: Вторник, 08.03.2011, 10:53 | Сообщение # 2 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| С момента образования планеты Земля, если принять космологическую гипотезу большого взрыва, я называю электровзрыва, то я ядре газопылевая туманность-шаробразная плазма-я называю шаровая молния-вращение плазмы молнии приводит во вращение мантию, литосферу, континентальную кору-естественно от центра до поверхности скорость уменьшается и если в центре скорость вращения 20-40 м\сек, то на поверхности от 2 -до 16 см\год, что мы наблюдаем по данным GPS. Вращение ядра и приводит к динамо-эффекту планеты Земля, создается магнитное, гравитационное поле земли, образование атмосферы связано с дегазацией планеты... Вот построив модель планеты Земля-мы получим звездолет, где все будет для жизнедеятельности человека. Такую мини -модель я сейчас строю, но не хватает денег, никто не помогает, все на одном энтузиазме.... См. в поиске -модель планеты Земля- я в гугле первый[url="http://www.google.kz/search?ie=UTF-8&hl=ru&q=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%20%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8B%20%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D1%8F"]http://www.google.kz/search?ie=UTF-8&h...%BC%D0%BB%D1%8F[/url]
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| |
| newenergy | Дата: Четверг, 10.03.2011, 23:53 | Сообщение # 3 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| Пик добычи нефти никогда не упадет, а будет только повышаться, по крайней мере понижаться не будет, потому что нефть постоянно воспроизводится в зонах континентальной субдукции... Но выкачивание нефти приведет к гибели планеты, так как нефть является кровью планеты, смазкой для вращения геосфер, радиаторный эффект, динамо-эффект, электричество земли вырабатывает магнитное и гравитационное поле земли, вот откуда идет гибель планеты-глобальное изменение климата-добавьте график годовых температур к графику добычи нефти, воды, газа..... Эта кривая будет называться кривой Тарасенко. http://ecocrisis.wordpress.com/economia/peakoil/#comment-7531
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| | |
| newenergy | Дата: Суббота, 12.03.2011, 20:46 | Сообщение # 5 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| 
Начал новые опыты, результаты прекрасные, скоро будет новая энергия
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| |
| newenergy | Дата: Воскресенье, 13.03.2011, 11:02 | Сообщение # 6 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| Не, я после землетрясения....
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| |
| newenergy | Дата: Понедельник, 14.03.2011, 06:58 | Сообщение # 7 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| http://inoforum.ru/inostra....ravnine
http://www.inoforum.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=13299&st=0&start=0
ты знаешь, я здесь на форуме на них наехал, они сразу затухли, так что никто не спасется, пора делать летающие тарелки....
Водородная бомба под русской равниной...., это пострашне Японии будет, но все равно что-то будет. например сгорим все синим пламенем....
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| |
| newenergy | Дата: Понедельник, 14.03.2011, 07:12 | Сообщение # 8 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| Извините, что сразу не озвучил мою идею. Нужно было «обрисовать мысль» .
Предположим есть механический «колебательный контур», т. е. обычный маятник.
Колебания в котором, как мы знаем, затухают из за различных сопротивлений.
Один из способов поддержания постоянных колебаний в механическом маятнике, это приложение силы к этому маятнику с частотой его колебаний.
Есть другой способ. Это увеличение или уменьшение длины маятника, опять же с частотой колебаний. Т.е. как ребенок качаясь на качелях поддерживает амплитуду приседая с частотой колебаний.
В электронном аналоге маятника - колебательном контуре, есть сейчас единственный способ поддержания колебаний -это подавать напряжение на него с частотой колебательного контура. Но если за аналог взять механический маятник, то колебания можно поддержать в нем изменяя индуктивность или ёмкость с частотой этого контура.
Индуктивность менять проблематично, на данный момент, только можно механически. Но вот ёмкость можно менять электронным способом. Есть электронный прибор варикап, у которого ёмкость зависит от прикладываемого к нему напряжения. Но дело в том, что напряжение прикладываемое к варикапу чтобы изменить его емкость намного меньше напряжения колебательного контура. Это значит, что можно поддержать колебания контура и использовать его энергию изменяя всего лишь емкость или индуктивность с его собственной частотой.
Это даст нам трансформатор, который сам себя запитывает энергией, который преобразует колебание ёмкости или индуктивности в электричество.
Вот только нужен хороший электронщик, кто бы всё это дело рсчитал и составил схему.http://www.radosvet.net/forum/index.php?topic=304.msg3471#new
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| |
| newenergy | Дата: Понедельник, 14.03.2011, 17:03 | Сообщение # 9 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| 10 киловольт, ничего страшного, бывало хуже, начинаю опыты, правда кондеров молавато, но стреляет все-таки, нужно создать пластовые условия замыкания, как после землетрясения или каких подвижек. раствор перемешивается и взрыв.... Если что не забывайте меня..., сегодня не пошел, был на море и кондеры искал на старой обогатительной фабрике, там уран обогощали, такая картина лунная, и запах кислоты..., а лет 25 прошло уже, как забросили фабрику...
Это мы на море
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| |
| newenergy | Дата: Воскресенье, 20.03.2011, 20:23 | Сообщение # 10 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| 
Мой доклад в Индии по ХЯС
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| |
| newenergy | Дата: Среда, 23.03.2011, 13:04 | Сообщение # 11 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| Тектоника плит скольжений и холодный ядерный синтез в земной коре
Г.В. Тарасенко, Е.А. Демичева Каспийский государственный университет технологии и инжиниринга им. Ш.Есенова
Республика Казахстан, г.Актау, 24 мкр. Институт нефти и газа
tarasenko-genadi@rambler.ru
Представление о полой Земле возникло лишь после того, как в научных кругах утвердилась теория шарообразности Земли. Астроном Эдмонт Галей ( 1656, 1742) выдвинул предположение, что наша планета имеет полую внутреннюю сферу. Пытаясь объяснить перемещение магнитных полюсов нашей планеты, он предположил, что внутри её вращается несколько шаровидных оболочек, вставленных одна в другую. Примером строения планеты Земля служат шарообразные конкреции, образованные за счет электровзрывов в нефтегазоводоносных пластах [6]. Во время электровзрыва образуются шаровые молнии, обладающие мощным электромагнитным и гравитационным полем притягивающие растворенные химические элементы из пластовых флюидов. Образование нефти связывается именно с этими процессами, но в зонах субдукции, куда постоянно поставляется органический углерод вместе с горными породами. Происходит холодная трансмутация ядер химических элементов, которые вступают в реакцию и образуют новые соединения, в том числе воду, нефть, различные газы и т.д. [7]. Доказательством этих процессов служат палинологические исследования флюидов, где спора и пыльца может сохраняться до 600 градусов, а по отражательной способности витринита не превышает 300 градусов, что доказывает реакции холодного синтеза в мантии и ядре планеты Земля [3]. Теория тектоники плит скольжения геосфер и геолитодинамических комплексов в литосфере на основе ротационного режима планеты Земля является одной из самых перспективных направлений в изучении современной геодинамики. Базируясь на современных геодинамических, геолого-геофизических и других науках о планете Земля [1-6], можно сделать несколько весьма важных научных открытий: 1. Тектоническая эрозия (эффект жерновов) – этот процесс происходит постоянно за счет разности скоростей движений геолитодинамических комплексов (пластин, чешуй) друг под другом, приводит к размульчиванию горных пород и дифференциации их механическими, химическими и физическими процессами, происходящими на различных глубинах в субдукционной литосфере. Субдукционная литосфера должна являться структурой первого порядка, взамен геосинклиналям. Для этого требуются дополнительные региональные исследования глубинными сейсмическими методами на глубину поверхности Мохо, а в зоне субдукции – на глубину ее погружения. 2. Тектонические карсты и базальные пачки – это есть тектонические структурные элементы процессов скольжения и тектонической эрозии. Они являются основными коллекторами для флюидов. Коллектора не имеют пористости и проницаемости, они пустотелые и служат каналами миграции из зон субдукции, где флюиды постоянно образуются за счет холодного ядерного синтеза [7]. 3.Угольные и нефтяные залежи имеют одну тектоническую природу и генезис. Уголь образуется из нефти, а нефть из угля и органики за счет электричества в земной коре. 4. Палинологические анализы пластовых флюидов указывают на время зарождения субдукции и начало образования континентальной коры, процессы которой продолжаются в современное время в континентальных условиях. Этот факт опровергает многие палинспастические построения дрейфа континентов, но доказывает постоянную их аккрецию и перемещение на основе вращения геосфер от ядра планеты до поверхности [1-3]. 5. Эксперементальные данные ядерно-плазменных реакций [7], вполне закономерны и для природных условий планеты Земля. Реальность образования нефти из органического или минерального угля вполне обоснованно и подтверждено на практике. 6. Гравитационные и магнитные силы планеты Земля вырабатываются самой планетой, а флюиды служат отводом тепла (радиаторный эффект) от трения геосфер, электроразрядов и холодного ядерного синтеза. Отбор флюидов приводит к разогреву планеты, что отмечается гидрометеорологическими исследованиями на протяжении многих лет, особенно в районах зоны разгрузки субдукционной литосферы.
Одним из доказательств теории тектоники плит скольжения служат землетрясения и попытки их прогнозирования. Каждое сильное землетресение уникально и по многим параметрам не совместимо с другим землетрясением, прошедшем в том же районе. Прогнозные признаки, выявленные после прошедшего землетресения, зачастую не совпадают перед следующим землетрясением. Описано более сотни прогнозных признаков, получены десятки патентов на изобретения по прогнозу землетрясений, но известно лишь несколько прогнозов, спасшие жизнь сотням тысяч людей. Задача заключается в выборе диапазона частот, при которых происходят резонансные явления. Частоты образуются за счет динамо-эффекта планеты Земля, излучаемые вращением геосфер. В условиях пониженной прочности неоднородной дислоцированной верхней части земной коры дополнительное напряжения, вызываемые длиннопериодными деформационными процессами, могут быть достаточными для частичного разрушения Среды и переизлучения части энергии в виде сейсмических волн в широком диапазоне частот – эмиссия [4].
По данным стационарных сейсмических станций с аналоговой записью, расположенных на территории Кыргызстана, частотные характеристики аппаратуры позволяют получать непрерывные записи в широком диапазоне частот 0,01 гц до 200 гц (период от 100 сек до 0.05), а динамический диапазон до 140 дб (по данным Института сейсмологи Кыргызстана с.н.с. Тарасенко Ю.И.).
Анализ этих записей показал, что колебания с периодом 58 – 60 сек и их гармоники являются самыми интенсивными колебаниями на непрерывной записи. Интенсивность их на 2-3 порядка выше других зарегистрированных волн – помех на больших частотах. Низкочастотные колебания регистрируются только на горизонтальных составляющих приборов, это говорит о том, что эти волны относятся к типу поперечных и несут информацию о горизонтальных движениях земной коры, совпадающие с данными GPS.
При определении азимута подхода низкочастотной волны горизонтальные компоненты (математическим путём) проворачивались через 10о по часовой стрелке от 0о до 180о и фиксировались максимальная амплитуда по одной горизонтальной компоненте и минимальная амплитуда колебаний по другой горизонтальной компоненте.
Установлено, что все без исключения землетресения с К > 13 и значительная часть землетрясений с K > 11 предваряются резкими изменениями амплитуд этой волны по большинству станций, а иногда и азимутами подхода 15-45 дней до землетрясения. По данным анализа вариаций модуля полного вектора магнитного поля Земли, отмечается кореллируемость этих сигналов с сейсмическими. Афтершоковая деятельность земной коры не влияет на изменение амплитуд. Скольжение геолитодинамических (чешуй, пластин) комплексов в литосфере приводит к разрыву их сплошности, образуя огромные полости (пещеры, карсты). В свою очередь они заполняются флюидами, мигрирующие из зон субдукции. Время заполнения полости занимает от 15 до 45 дней, после чего происходит замыкание природного электроконденсатора (части литосферы) – электроразряда, приводящего к землетрясению. Для прогноза землетрясений нужно проводить глубинную сейсмику более 20 сек, что позволит подсчитывать время миграции флюидов из зоны субдукции в полость с момента резкого изменения амплитуд по сейсмологическим данным.
Эти данные указывают на внутреннее земное, а не наведённое с поверхности, происхождение очень сильного импульса, который деформирует земную кору в данном конкретном районе, изменяет амплитуду собственных колебаний земной коры. Этот импульс возникает до самого проявления землетресения в объёме подготовки землетрясения. Наиболее перспективными методами за обнаружением этого импульса, наряду с изучением амплитуды азимута подхода низкочастотной волны, считаю изучение магнитного поля на этой частоте, деформационных и наклономерных исследований в нескольких точках на полигоне[7]. Геологические данные по изучению планеты Земля позволяют создать модель происходящих в ней процессов. Основным механизмом является вращение геосфер как внутри планеты, так и во время ее образования. Ядро Земли вращается со скоростью 20-40 м/сек, мантия – 1-10 м/год (Трубицын В.П. 1998г.) и сама литосфера – 2-16 см/год (по данным GPS). Вращение геосфер приводит к динамо-эффекту, получаемая таким образом энергия накапливается в литосфере, устроенной как электроконденсатор. Электроразряды такого природного конденсатора приводят к землетрясениям, цунами, изменениям гравитационного и магнитного полей планеты Земля, а самое главное - к ядерно-плазменным реакциям. Примером строения планеты Земля служат шарообразные конкреции. Их происхождение связано с шаровыми молниями, образующими вращение флюидов в пластах-коллекторах. Во время вращения вмещающие породы пласта притягиваются к центру и таким образом наращиваются сферические кольца (геосферы), образуя шароподобные, цилиндрические, элипсовидные, миндалевидные и др. конкреции. Вращение флюидов возможно только в пустоте (карсте), что противоречит «классическому» пониманию строения пласта-коллектора, где должна присутствовать пористость и проницаемость, т.е. кристаллическая решетка. Отсутствие последней доказывается в угольных пластах, выходящих на поверхность, которые являются продуктами палеонефти, но не палео-деревьев, торфа, органики (взрывы в шахтах, это и есть шаровые молнии). Усиливающиеся природные катаклизмы связаны именно с использованием пластовых флюидов, приводящие к разогреву планеты Земля и человечеству нужен другой источник энергии, который подсказывает сама природа. Строение планеты Земля и процессы реакций в ней являются прототипом модели новой энергии, которые позволят строить летающие тарелки (звездолеты), что позволит открыть новую космическую эру и снизить потребности человечества в современном энергетическом сырье.
Литература
1. Тарасенко Г.В. Субдукционная литосфера-основной источник углеводородов. Журнал "Недра Поволжья и Прикаспия" Саратов, 18 выпуск, апрель 1999 г. г. Саратов
2. Тарасенко Г.В. Континентальные субдукция и обдукция – единый механизм нефтегазо-и структурооразования. “Генезис нефти и газа”. Москва, ГЕОС.-2003
3. Тарасенко Г.В. Тектоника плит скольжения, палинология флюидов и грядущие катастрофы на планете Земля от техногенеза. Проблемы сейсмологии III-го тысячелетия: Материалы международной геофизической конференции г. Новосибирск 15-19 сентября 2003.- СО РАН. с. 86-90.
4. Тарасенко Г.В. Происхождение землетрясений с позиций тектоники плит скольжений. 14 Международный семинар «Геодинамика и сейсмичность Средиземноморско-Черноморско-Каспийского региона», тезисы докладов 2-6 октября 2006 г. Геленджик. с. 34-37.
5. Тарасенко Г.В. Образование нефти и тектоника плит скольжения. Международная конференция «Геология, ресурсы, перспективы освоения нефтегазовых недр Прикаспийской впадины и Каспийского региона». 18-20 сентября 2007 г. РГУ нефти и газа им. Губкина, г. Москва. с. 154-157.
6. Тарасенко Г.В., Демичева Е.А. Конкреционная модель планеты Земля и холодный ядерный синтез. Материалы Всероссийской конференции с международным участием, посвященной 100-летию со дня рождения академика П.Н. Кропоткина, 18-22 октября 2010 года, г. Москва. С. 545-548.
7. Tarasenko G.V. Cold nuclear fusion in the earth's crust. 16th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ICCF-16) Chennai, India, February 6-11, 2011. Написал тезисы на конференцию во Владивосток, до 1 апреля, если что подавайте заявки и шлите тезисы http://conf2011.fegi.ru/ru/abstracts
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| | |
| newenergy | Дата: Среда, 20.04.2011, 19:21 | Сообщение # 13 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| http://newsland.ru/news/detail/id/681522/cat/69/
Жалко конечно этих академиков, плохие у них геологи, если говорят, что на глубине 100 км. 1000 градусов тепла, там не будет более 600 градусов, да и известняк-это же органика ;D
Просто этим академикам надо подсказать сделать разряд электрический так на 50 кДж, и у них все получится, а так не видать им удачи... А зоны субдукции всегда поставляют органику и на 1000 км, но нефть получится природная только от электрического разряда.... 
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| |
| newenergy | Дата: Четверг, 21.04.2011, 07:13 | Сообщение # 14 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| Doubts and questions about the Rossi device continue
Doubts and questions about the Rossi device continue. Why can’t Mr. Rossi give smaller demonstrations with the help of his production-line devices (which will later be fitted into the 1 MW device) in front of newer (serious and sincere) investigators with newer (serious and sincere) doubts and questions? Doubts and questions about the Rossi device continue – I mean not the freak or insulting doubts and questions but the serious and sincere ones. I disagree. After the Feb. 10 test, I have not seen any serious doubts by knowledgeable people. I have seen only nonsense. For example, over the last few days at the Vortex discussion group, a person named Beene has been saying the cell works by extracting 16 kW of heat from the cooling water circulation pump, which is a ~20 W unit. I explained to him: 1. That is a violation of the conservation of energy; 2. Even if the pump was much larger, the water is not restricted inside the cell so no heat can be extracted from it; 3. Heat added to the water by the pump mechanical action is below the inlet thermocouple so it cannot be measured by flow calorimetry. He did not understand any of these points. I have encountered many people with similar notions. There were legitimate doubts before Feb. 10, and there may be some left now, but I have not seen any. I agree that it would be delightful if Rossi would do more demonstrations. I would like nothing better. On the other hand we cannot fault him for the choice of people he welcomed to the last demonstration: Essen, the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society, and Kullander, the chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' Energy Committee. See: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm I have been in contact with Rossi for a year or so, and I read his blog pretty carefully, so I know what he is thinking. He says that additional demonstrations will not convince mainstream scientists or the journals or mass media, and they will do nothing to enhance his business plans, so they are a waste of time. He says the only thing that will convince people is direct sales. He may be right about that. So far, only NyTeknik and the Washington Times have taken any notice. No other mass media has covered him. Very few mainstream scientists believe the claims. Even when I tell them that he instantly convinced Essen and Kullander. They say he must be a sleight of hand magician who fooled them, or they say Essen and Kullander must be criminals involved with him in a conspiracy to defraud Defkalion. These are same kinds of responses I have been hearing for 20 years about mainstream cold fusion. This is Robert Park's view of cold fusions. Park himself has not a word about Rossi, but he has often written in the Washington Post and elsewhere that cold fusion was never replicated, and researchers who claim they replicated are lunatics or criminal frauds. He does not mince words. This is the mainstream view of cold fusion. Rossi has had no impact on it. Actually, he has made the opposition worse, because his claims are so flamboyant. Some people willing to admit there might be a marginal effect, close to the noise and probably chemical, but they are outraged when I tell them there is a reactor that inputs 80 W and outputs 16 kW for hours or weeks. (Park has been told about Rossi. I assume he has said nothing because he has lost interest. I doubt he is worried that he might have been wrong. He told me that thought has never crossed his mind. He is calmly and absolutely certain he is right. He also told me that he has never bothered to read a paper on cold fusion, and I am sure that is true, because he knows nothing about the subject.) Rossi says none of this will change, and no mainstream journals, corporations or universities will allow cold fusion research until he cuts the Gordian knot by selling machines. I can't fault him for thinking that, when I see the rabid attacks against him. On the other hand, Essen and Kullander asked him to send machines the Universities of Uppsala and Stockholm. He says he will after production begins. I wish he would do it sooner! I wish he would put more emphasis on making small reactors for demonstrations, and prototypes for the Defkalion factory. For some reason, he is spending all of his time on the 1 MW reactor. I suppose he has a contractual agreement to make it. Any contract can be modified. Modifying this would surely benefit both parties. I cannot understand why the 1 MW reactor has such high priority. I wish the thought of making it had never crossed his mind. I have told him many times that he could convince the whole world and get a billion dollars in investment capital with what he has now, if he would only give a few of these things to universities and corporations under non disclosure agreements (NDA). He is very cordial and friendly, but he will not take this or any other advice from me. He is determined to make the 1 MW reactor and deliver it on time. One reason he is concentrating on this is clear. He will not be paid by Defkalion until he delivers the 1 MW reactor, and they test it and confirm it works. Then -- according to Greek press reports -- he will be paid a one-time royalty of 100 million euros. He does not want anything after that; he is giving Defkalion full rights. He has spent all of his personal fortune developing this. Naturally, he wants to be paid soon. However, as I said, I see nothing special about a 1 MW reactor. Why not change the contract to make it 100 kW? Or 10 kW, for that matter? The 1 MW reactor itself has no more business value than a 10 kW reactor would. Defkalion wants the technology; they do not want one particular prototype reactor of a particular size. It is as if the Wright brothers in 1904, just after Kitty Hawk, had refused to demonstrate or sell any airplanes until they could perfect one that flies 6 and a half hours carrying 6 passengers. Igor Sikorsky did that in 1914. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf That was a worthy goal in 1914. It was ambitious. It would have been an insane goal in 1904. - Jed
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| |
| newenergy | Дата: Четверг, 21.04.2011, 07:31 | Сообщение # 15 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| Doubts and questions about the Rossi device continue
Respected ICCF16 participants Doubts and questions about the Rossi device continue. Why can’t Mr. Rossi give smaller demonstrations with the help of his production-line devices (which will later be fitted into the 1 MW device) in front of newer (serious and sincere) investigators with newer (serious and sincere) doubts and questions? Doubts and questions about the Rossi device continue – I mean not the freak or insulting doubts and questions but the serious and sincere ones. Every production-line device has to be individually tested. Mr. Rossi should therefore periodically hold demos and answer the newer doubts and questions not just with clever brush-off words but with live activity of his production-line devices (which will be built in into the larger device and have to be tested beforehand). Is that not possible?
Feed-back from serious-minded investigators should be welcome. (I wonder why Steven Krivit is hardly online these days. There is no new news on his website or his blog since many days. Is nothing happening (except Fukushima – but even here the newsline is dead)?) V. Godbole --
NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen!
Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone Doubts and questions about the Rossi device continue
Doubts and questions about the Rossi device continue. Why can’t Mr. Rossi give smaller demonstrations with the help of his production-line devices (which will later be fitted into the 1 MW device) in front of newer (serious and sincere) investigators with newer (serious and sincere) doubts and questions? Doubts and questions about the Rossi device continue – I mean not the freak or insulting doubts and questions but the serious and sincere ones. I disagree. After the Feb. 10 test, I have not seen any serious doubts by knowledgeable people. I have seen only nonsense. For example, over the last few days at the Vortex discussion group, a person named Beene has been saying the cell works by extracting 16 kW of heat from the cooling water circulation pump, which is a ~20 W unit. I explained to him: 1. That is a violation of the conservation of energy; 2. Even if the pump was much larger, the water is not restricted inside the cell so no heat can be extracted from it; 3. Heat added to the water by the pump mechanical action is below the inlet thermocouple so it cannot be measured by flow calorimetry. He did not understand any of these points. I have encountered many people with similar notions. There were legitimate doubts before Feb. 10, and there may be some left now, but I have not seen any. I agree that it would be delightful if Rossi would do more demonstrations. I would like nothing better. On the other hand we cannot fault him for the choice of people he welcomed to the last demonstration: Essen, the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society, and Kullander, the chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' Energy Committee. See: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm I have been in contact with Rossi for a year or so, and I read his blog pretty carefully, so I know what he is thinking. He says that additional demonstrations will not convince mainstream scientists or the journals or mass media, and they will do nothing to enhance his business plans, so they are a waste of time. He says the only thing that will convince people is direct sales. He may be right about that. So far, only NyTeknik and the Washington Times have taken any notice. No other mass media has covered him. Very few mainstream scientists believe the claims. Even when I tell them that he instantly convinced Essen and Kullander. They say he must be a sleight of hand magician who fooled them, or they say Essen and Kullander must be criminals involved with him in a conspiracy to defraud Defkalion. These are same kinds of responses I have been hearing for 20 years about mainstream cold fusion. This is Robert Park's view of cold fusions. Park himself has not a word about Rossi, but he has often written in the Washington Post and elsewhere that cold fusion was never replicated, and researchers who claim they replicated are lunatics or criminal frauds. He does not mince words. This is the mainstream view of cold fusion. Rossi has had no impact on it. Actually, he has made the opposition worse, because his claims are so flamboyant. Some people willing to admit there might be a marginal effect, close to the noise and probably chemical, but they are outraged when I tell them there is a reactor that inputs 80 W and outputs 16 kW for hours or weeks. (Park has been told about Rossi. I assume he has said nothing because he has lost interest. I doubt he is worried that he might have been wrong. He told me that thought has never crossed his mind. He is calmly and absolutely certain he is right. He also told me that he has never bothered to read a paper on cold fusion, and I am sure that is true, because he knows nothing about the subject.) Rossi says none of this will change, and no mainstream journals, corporations or universities will allow cold fusion research until he cuts the Gordian knot by selling machines. I can't fault him for thinking that, when I see the rabid attacks against him. On the other hand, Essen and Kullander asked him to send machines the Universities of Uppsala and Stockholm. He says he will after production begins. I wish he would do it sooner! I wish he would put more emphasis on making small reactors for demonstrations, and prototypes for the Defkalion factory. For some reason, he is spending all of his time on the 1 MW reactor. I suppose he has a contractual agreement to make it. Any contract can be modified. Modifying this would surely benefit both parties. I cannot understand why the 1 MW reactor has such high priority. I wish the thought of making it had never crossed his mind. I have told him many times that he could convince the whole world and get a billion dollars in investment capital with what he has now, if he would only give a few of these things to universities and corporations under non disclosure agreements (NDA). He is very cordial and friendly, but he will not take this or any other advice from me. He is determined to make the 1 MW reactor and deliver it on time. One reason he is concentrating on this is clear. He will not be paid by Defkalion until he delivers the 1 MW reactor, and they test it and confirm it works. Then -- according to Greek press reports -- he will be paid a one-time royalty of 100 million euros. He does not want anything after that; he is giving Defkalion full rights. He has spent all of his personal fortune developing this. Naturally, he wants to be paid soon. However, as I said, I see nothing special about a 1 MW reactor. Why not change the contract to make it 100 kW? Or 10 kW, for that matter? The 1 MW reactor itself has no more business value than a 10 kW reactor would. Defkalion wants the technology; they do not want one particular prototype reactor of a particular size. It is as if the Wright brothers in 1904, just after Kitty Hawk, had refused to demonstrate or sell any airplanes until they could perfect one that flies 6 and a half hours carrying 6 passengers. Igor Sikorsky did that in 1914. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf That was a worthy goal in 1914. It was ambitious. It would have been an insane goal in 1904. - Jed
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| |
| newenergy | Дата: Четверг, 21.04.2011, 21:19 | Сообщение # 16 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| Дата: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:44:22 -0700
Перевод текста на иностранный язык Платная услуга по профессиональному переводу предоставляется компанией Переведем.ру
Jed, I agree with everything you said except your last paragraph. The Wrights/Sikorsky analogy is useful in a scientific sense, but not in the sense of modern business. Also, do you know that Rossi does not have internal milestones such that he needs to show those smaller reactors in order to receive continued funding? I would expect that Defkalion has those milestones but considers their existence proprietary. That would make good business although a hinderance of the scientific method. Also, the US, and many other countries, believe that the future of power generation is distributed and a 1MW generator is a viable product prototype. After receiving such a prototype, Defkalion can move from science to engineering without the need for intrinsic scale-up. Having spent 25 years in Silicon Valley, I've learned that the scientific method doesn't usually drive "the next best thing" future invention. In fact, the scientific method usually devalues the invention by slowing things down and not protecting the IP. Let's all hope that Rossi is correct and that he can meet this 1MW goal without stumbling along the way. Fran On Apr 20, 2011, at 7:43 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Vasudev Godbole <godbole@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
> Doubts and questions about the Rossi device continue.
>
> Why can’t Mr. Rossi give smaller demonstrations with the help of his production-line devices (which will later be fitted into the 1 MW device) in front of newer (serious and sincere) investigators with newer (serious and sincere) doubts and questions?
>
> Doubts and questions about the Rossi device continue – I mean not the freak or insulting doubts and questions but the serious and sincere ones.
>
>
> I disagree. After the Feb. 10 test, I have not seen any serious doubts by knowledgeable people. I have seen only nonsense. For example, over the last few days at the Vortex discussion group, a person named Beene has been saying the cell works by extracting 16 kW of heat from the cooling water circulation pump, which is a ~20 W unit. I explained to him:
>
> 1. That is a violation of the conservation of energy;
>
> 2. Even if the pump was much larger, the water is not restricted inside the cell so no heat can be extracted from it;
>
> 3. Heat added to the water by the pump mechanical action is below the inlet thermocouple so it cannot be measured by flow calorimetry.
>
> He did not understand any of these points. I have encountered many people with similar notions. There were legitimate doubts before Feb. 10, and there may be some left now, but I have not seen any.
>
> I agree that it would be delightful if Rossi would do more demonstrations. I would like nothing better. On the other hand we cannot fault him for the choice of people he welcomed to the last demonstration: Essen, the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society, and Kullander, the chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' Energy Committee. See:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm
>
> I have been in contact with Rossi for a year or so, and I read his blog pretty carefully, so I know what he is thinking.
>
> He says that additional demonstrations will not convince mainstream scientists or the journals or mass media, and they will do nothing to enhance his business plans, so they are a waste of time. He says the only thing that will convince people is direct sales. He may be right about that. So far, only NyTeknik and the Washington Times have taken any notice. No other mass media has covered him. Very few mainstream scientists believe the claims. Even when I tell them that he instantly convinced Essen and Kullander. They say he must be a sleight of hand magician who fooled them, or they say Essen and Kullander must be criminals involved with him in a conspiracy to defraud Defkalion. These are same kinds of responses I have been hearing for 20 years about mainstream cold fusion. This is Robert Park's view of cold fusions. Park himself has not a word about Rossi, but he has often written in the Washington Post and elsewhere that cold fusion was never replicated, and researchers who claim they replicated are lunatics or criminal frauds. He does not mince words. This is the mainstream view of cold fusion. Rossi has had no impact on it. Actually, he has made the opposition worse, because his claims are so flamboyant. Some people willing to admit there might be a marginal effect, close to the noise and probably chemical, but they are outraged when I tell them there is a reactor that inputs 80 W and outputs 16 kW for hours or weeks.
>
> (Park has been told about Rossi. I assume he has said nothing because he has lost interest. I doubt he is worried that he might have been wrong. He told me that thought has never crossed his mind. He is calmly and absolutely certain he is right. He also told me that he has never bothered to read a paper on cold fusion, and I am sure that is true, because he knows nothing about the subject.)
>
> Rossi says none of this will change, and no mainstream journals, corporations or universities will allow cold fusion research until he cuts the Gordian knot by selling machines. I can't fault him for thinking that, when I see the rabid attacks against him. On the other hand, Essen and Kullander asked him to send machines the Universities of Uppsala and Stockholm. He says he will after production begins. I wish he would do it sooner!
>
> I wish he would put more emphasis on making small reactors for demonstrations, and prototypes for the Defkalion factory. For some reason, he is spending all of his time on the 1 MW reactor. I suppose he has a contractual agreement to make it. Any contract can be modified. Modifying this would surely benefit both parties. I cannot understand why the 1 MW reactor has such high priority.
>
> I wish the thought of making it had never crossed his mind. I have told him many times that he could convince the whole world and get a billion dollars in investment capital with what he has now, if he would only give a few of these things to universities and corporations under non disclosure agreements (NDA).
>
> He is very cordial and friendly, but he will not take this or any other advice from me. He is determined to make the 1 MW reactor and deliver it on time.
>
> One reason he is concentrating on this is clear. He will not be paid by Defkalion until he delivers the 1 MW reactor, and they test it and confirm it works. Then -- according to Greek press reports -- he will be paid a one-time royalty of 100 million euros. He does not want anything after that; he is giving Defkalion full rights. He has spent all of his personal fortune developing this. Naturally, he wants to be paid soon. However, as I said, I see nothing special about a 1 MW reactor. Why not change the contract to make it 100 kW? Or 10 kW, for that matter? The 1 MW reactor itself has no more business value than a 10 kW reactor would. Defkalion wants the technology; they do not want one particular prototype reactor of a particular size. It is as if the Wright brothers in 1904, just after Kitty Hawk, had refused to demonstrate or sell any airplanes until they could perfect one that flies 6 and a half hours carrying 6 passengers. Igor Sikorsky did that in 1914. See:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf
>
> That was a worthy goal in 1914. It was ambitious. It would have been an insane goal in 1904.
>
> - Jed
> Francis L. Tanzella, Ph. D.
Senior Chemist
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Ave.
Menlo Park, CA 94025
francis.tanzella@sri.com
Ph. 650-859-4701
Fx. 650-859-2111
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| |
| newenergy | Дата: Пятница, 22.04.2011, 10:39 | Сообщение # 17 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| Thu, 21 Apr 2011 23:57:40 -0400
Перевод текста на иностранный язык Платная услуга по профессиональному переводу предоставляется компанией Переведем.ру
I share some of these concerns about safety, but I have absolutely no influence with Rossi. He is a nice fellow, and polite, but he has made it abundantly clear to me the does not want to hear my opinion about his business strategy, or about safety issues. Anyway, this situation is probably out of his hands. Money and power have made their entrance. 200 million euros have reportedly been committed. People at the highest levels in Greece are involved, from the President down, according to the Greek press and Focardi in his interview: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011....ld.html People at the highest levels of government and people who can come up with that kind of money will not listen to us. I have concerns about safety because Celani told me he detected a burst of radiation during the Jan. 14 demonstration. Villa, from U. Bologna did not detect anything with his instruments. Below is a report I circulated about that event, written by me and checked by Francesco, who may want to make some more changes and updates. The good news is, I expect this will bring all researchers in the field copious funding. If they begin manufacturing and selling these things, cold fusion will be unstoppable, even if it irradiates some people. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Celani detects radiation during the Jan. 14 demonstration of the Rossi device Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly above background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detect something. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, from my notes, with corrections and additions by Celani. Celani attended the demonstration on Jan. 14. The device did not work at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room with the device. He estimates that he was around 6 m from the device. He had two battery-powered detectors: 1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 s acquisition time. 2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, Perspective Scientific), which was set to 10 s acquisition time. Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in count mode rather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the number of counts per second. Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that elevation. As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to be switched off to "delete overrange," which was >7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again. About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. Celani commented that the only conventional source of gamma rays far from a nuclear reactor would be a rare event: a cosmic ray impact on the atmosphere producing proton storm shower of particles. He and I agreed it is extremely unlikely this happened coincidentally the same moment the reactor started . . . Although, come to think of it, perhaps the causality is reversed, and the cosmic ray triggered the Rossi device. Another scientist said perhaps both detectors malfunctioned because of an electromagnetic source in the building or some other prosaic source. Celani considers this unrealistic because he also had in operation battery-operated radio frequency detectors: an ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) and RF (COM environmental microwave monitor), both made by Perspective Scientific. No radio frequency anomalies were detected. I remarked that it is also unrealistic because the two gamma detectors are battery powered and they work on different principles. The scientist pointed to neutron detectors in an early cold fusion experiment that malfunctioned at a certain time of day every day because some equipment in the laboratory building was turned on every day. That sort of thing can happen with neutron detectors, which are finicky, but this Geiger counter is used for safety monitoring. Such devices have to be rugged and reliable or they will not keep you safe, so I doubt it is easy to fool one of them. Celani expresses some reservations about the reality of the Rossi device. Given his detector results I think it would be more appropriate for him to question the safety of it. When Celani went in to see the experiment in action, he brought out the sodium iodide detector and prepared to change it to spectrum mode, which would give him more information about the ongoing reaction. Rossi objected vociferously, saying the spectrum would give Celani (or anyone else who see it), all they need to know to replicate the machine and steal Ross's intellectual property. Celani later groused that there is no point to inviting scientists to a demo if you have no intentions of letter them use their own instruments. (Note, however, that Levi et al. did use their own instruments.) Jacques Dufour also attended the demonstration. He does not speak much Italian, so he could not follow the discussion. He made some observations, including one that I consider important, namely that the outlet pipe was far too hot to touch. That means the temperature of it was over 70°C. That, in turn, proves there was considerable excess heat. McKubre and others have said the outlet temperature sensor was too close to the body of the device. Others have questioned whether the steam was really dry or not. If the question is whether the machine really produced heat or not, these factors can be ignored. All you need to know is the temperature of the tap water going in (15°C), the flow rate and the power input (400 W). At that power level the outlet pipe would be ~30°C. Celanipoints out that the input power was quite unstable, fluctuating between 400 and 800 W, but it was still not large enough to explain the excess heat. Celani did not see the steam emerge from the end of the pipe, but he reported the whistling sound of steam passing through the pipe. (Dufour did not notice that but he says he is hard of hearing, especially high frequency sounds.) I think there is no question the water boiled, and much of it was vaporized, so there was massive excess heat. Celani complained that phase-change calorimetry is too complicated, but I think he exaggerates the difficulty. I agree that the actual calorimetric method could be improved, especially with a 5-minute test of steam sparged into a container of cold water. Here are a couple of additional comments from Celani: a) The NaI (Tl) gamma detector had an energy range from 25 to 2000 keV; b) Celani asked, in several public mail to Rossi, that for a conclusive SCIENTIFIC demonstration of such wonderful device, the maximum temperature of the outgoing water has to be <90°C so that CONVENTIONAL flow calorimetry can be used (rather than phase-change calorimetry).
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| |
| newenergy | Дата: Пятница, 22.04.2011, 15:41 | Сообщение # 18 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| Il 22/04/11 05:57, Jed Rothwell ha scritto:
> I share some of these concerns about safety, but I have absolutely no influence with Rossi. He is a nice fellow, and polite, but he has made it abundantly clear to me the does not want to hear my opinion about his business strategy, or about safety issues. Anyway, this situation is probably out of his hands. Money and power have made their entrance. 200 million euros have reportedly been committed. People at the highest levels in Greece are involved, from the President down, according to the Greek press and Focardi in his interview:
>
> http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011....ld.html
>
> People at the highest levels of government and people who can come up with that kind of money will not listen to us.
>
> I have concerns about safety because Celani told me he detected a burst of radiation during the Jan. 14 demonstration. Villa, from U. Bologna did not detect anything with his instruments. Below is a report I circulated about that event, written by me and checked by Francesco, who may want to make some more changes and updates.
>
> The good news is, I expect this will bring all researchers in the field copious funding. If they begin manufacturing and selling these things, cold fusion will be unstoppable, even if it irradiates some people.
>
> - Jed
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Celani detects radiation during the Jan. 14 demonstration of the Rossi device
>
> Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly above background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detect something. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, from my notes, with corrections and additions by Celani.
>
> Celani attended the demonstration on Jan. 14. The device did not work at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room with the device. He estimates that he was around 6 m from the device. He had two battery-powered detectors:
>
> 1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 s acquisition time.
>
> 2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, Perspective Scientific), which was set to 10 s acquisition time.
>
> Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in count mode rather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the number of counts per second.
>
> Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that elevation.
>
> As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to be switched off to "delete overrange," which was >7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again.
>
> About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway.
>
> Celani commented that the only conventional source of gamma rays far from a nuclear reactor would be a rare event: a cosmic ray impact on the atmosphere producing proton storm shower of particles. He and I agreed it is extremely unlikely this happened coincidentally the same moment the reactor started . . . Although, come to think of it, perhaps the causality is reversed, and the cosmic ray triggered the Rossi device.
>
> Another scientist said perhaps both detectors malfunctioned because of an electromagnetic source in the building or some other prosaic source. Celani considers this unrealistic because he also had in operation battery-operated radio frequency detectors: an ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) and RF (COM environmental microwave monitor), both made by Perspective Scientific. No radio frequency anomalies were detected. I remarked that it is also unrealistic because the two gamma detectors are battery powered and they work on different principles. The scientist pointed to neutron detectors in an early cold fusion experiment that malfunctioned at a certain time of day every day because some equipment in the laboratory building was turned on every day. That sort of thing can happen with neutron detectors, which are finicky, but this Geiger counter is used for safety monitoring. Such devices have to be rugged and reliable or they will not keep you safe, so I doubt it is easy to fool one of them.
>
> Celani expresses some reservations about the reality of the Rossi device. Given his detector results I think it would be more appropriate for him to question the safety of it.
>
> When Celani went in to see the experiment in action, he brought out the sodium iodide detector and prepared to change it to spectrum mode, which would give him more information about the ongoing reaction. Rossi objected vociferously, saying the spectrum would give Celani (or anyone else who see it), all they need to know to replicate the machine and steal Ross's intellectual property.
>
> Celani later groused that there is no point to inviting scientists to a demo if you have no intentions of letter them use their own instruments. (Note, however, that Levi et al. did use their own instruments.)
>
> Jacques Dufour also attended the demonstration. He does not speak much Italian, so he could not follow the discussion. He made some observations, including one that I consider important, namely that the outlet pipe was far too hot to touch. That means the temperature of it was over 70°C. That, in turn, proves there was considerable excess heat. McKubre and others have said the outlet temperature sensor was too close to the body of the device. Others have questioned whether the steam was really dry or not. If the question is whether the machine really produced heat or not, these factors can be ignored. All you need to know is the temperature of the tap water going in (15°C), the flow rate and the power input (400 W). At that power level the outlet pipe would be ~30°C. Celanipoints out that the input power was quite unstable, fluctuating between 400 and 800 W, but it was still not large enough to explain the excess heat.
>
> Celani did not see the steam emerge from the end of the pipe, but he reported the whistling sound of steam passing through the pipe. (Dufour did not notice that but he says he is hard of hearing, especially high frequency sounds.) I think there is no question the water boiled, and much of it was vaporized, so there was massive excess heat. Celani complained that phase-change calorimetry is too complicated, but I think he exaggerates the difficulty. I agree that the actual calorimetric method could be improved, especially with a 5-minute test of steam sparged into a container of cold water.
>
>
> Here are a couple of additional comments from Celani:
>
> a) The NaI (Tl) gamma detector had an energy range from 25 to 2000 keV;
>
> b) Celani asked, in several public mail to Rossi, that for a conclusive SCIENTIFIC demonstration of such wonderful device, the maximum temperature of the outgoing water has to be <90°C so that CONVENTIONAL flow calorimetry can be used (rather than phase-change calorimetry).
>
*******************
******************************************** Dear Jed (and Dear Colleagues) I think Your report about my observations/comments, is OK.
About the intensity of 1-second signal, I think isn't a real danger.
Moreover, ALSO when the reactor was switched off, as I told You before (I hope), both the detectors give some weak anomalous counts.
Anyway, the intensity was strongly lower (in respect to switch-on situation) and no saturation of Geiger counter happened. * So, in conclusion, supposing that my instruments were OK (and there were no influence of cosmic rays), I think that, with the tickness of lead used (now Rossi said 20mm in mean, before 10mm), the danger of the reactor itself, in steady state conditions, is of no-concern at all about radiations coming out. * Another point is the real element used as secret additive or some new nuclear reactions (short lived elements, weakly penetrating???) that happened during the operation.
Obviously nothing can be predicted, at this moment, in the case of accident (like chemical explosion due to reaction between pressurized Hydrogen+some Oxigen coming out from some oxidized elements inside the reactor) that could scatter around the whole content of the reactor (among others, in the very small, and dangerous, state of nanomaterial). * Really, I am convinced that ONLY Andrea ROSSI himself can answer to the (several) safety problems and/or fears.
At this moment, and due to the strict regime of secrecy imposed by Rossi, we don't have enough elements to can make any realistic scenario: our are just academic exercises. * My opinion is, if we really like to get some useful result from our discussion/time, that we have to share/send (ASAP) such specific discussion to Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi. Thanks for your attention to my comments, Francesco CELANI
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| |
| newenergy | Дата: Пятница, 22.04.2011, 19:29 | Сообщение # 19 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| Дата: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:53:26 +0200
Перевод текста на иностранный язык Платная услуга по профессиональному переводу предоставляется компанией Переведем.ру
Andrew M., Francesco, Jed et al Many thanks for sharing your info and thoughts.
Right now the govt. of Maharashtra (capital Mumbai) has signed a deal with Areva (French consortium with state participation) for a 9000 MW nuclear project in Jaitapur (300 km south of Mumbai on the Indian west coast). The land has been acquired. People are demonstrating against the project and recently in police firing a person was killed. That death should not go waste.
I am going to Mumbai next week and what I would most like to do is to tell someone (influential) about the Focardi-Rossi device and stop this megaproject. But I am not a man of any influence or contacts – only BARC, Mahadeva, Iyengar, Sinha etc. can do that. But we still have no scientifically reviewed final confirmation about the F-R device, its safety etc. I do not know how many billion rupis will be invested (wasted!) on Jaitapur –if it is not stopped right way. I don’t know how these mega-contracts work, whether they can be abandoned etc. But the urgency is there. I would hate to write to the DOE or even the FBI (since Rossi is manufacturing in the USA) about my safety concerns re. the F-R device. The nuclear safety data must be published (and publicized) now, immediately – not later. We must pressurize for that. Otherwise the CF scientists are being irresponsible. We are not in the WW II and Manhattan project times (of secrecy). Rossi must understand that any secrecy or an individualistic brush-off (“I have everything under control”) attitude is not just maverick-like or irresponsible but could be severely damaging.
In German they say “Hoch zu Ross” (=sitting high on a tall horse like a conqueror). Rossi should not have this “Hoch zu Ross” attitude. Who can explain that to him? Privately and gently. The Jaitapur situation demands several confirmative demos in quick succession, right now, in front of many expert committees, with all kinds of serious questions and feedbacks. FP went public 1989 when they should not have gone public. Rossi is erring the other way. He refuses to go public. Excessive fear and distrust or an “on-a-high-horse” attitude are not wise at this stage. This self-important attitude of “ I don’t have time to give demos” or “my knowledge is my knowledge and know-how” or “my contractor forbids me from speaking out” is not acceptable. The one MW device can wait another few weeks longer. It does no harm if it gets done in December instead of October. But several more demos and a full publication of accurate safety data is a must right now. Every FR device must be legally sealed and connected to the internet (by cable or antenna) and all its data (output, safety, maintenance, recycling etc.) automatically and continuously monitored and registered by a legalized controlling authority. Chains and hierarchies of responsibility will have to be established. The manufacturing company has to be held accountable for its product till the end (recycling). May be all that even needs new legislation quickly. I can’t imagine a nuclear-active macro-device generating power (>x, value of x needs to be determined) going uncontrolled and unmonitored. It’s not windmills. In fact I am not in favor of FR units producing less than 50 MW and constructed in such a way that any attempt to tamper makes the whole device unproductive and sends a report to the controlling authority. Any tampering should be a punishable offence.
If the CF field is victorious then this victory brings with it a huge responsibility. We have no time to bask in the “glow” of this victory. Don’t forget that this glow is highly radioactive! Decentralizing radioactivity is not the right way forward. V. Godbole --
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| |
| newenergy | Дата: Пятница, 22.04.2011, 19:56 | Сообщение # 20 |
|
Admin
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 486
Репутация: -3
Статус: Offline
| Vasudev Godbole <godbole@gmx.de> wrote:
I would hate to write to the DOE or even the FBI (since Rossi is manufacturing in the USA) about my safety concerns re. the F-R device. The nuclear safety data must be published (and publicized) now, immediately – not later. We must pressurize for that. I do not think it would be a good idea to involve the FBI. They know nothing about nuclear energy. The DoE will say that cold fusion does not exist so this is none of their business. I informed some people I know at the DoD. They did not respond. I share some of your concerns. I circulated memos to Mike McKubre and others expressing fears that an accident might hurt people and jeopardize the future of cold fusion. They assured me there is no danger. I told Rossi as well. I and others have already explained this to him "privately and gently" as you put it. We have no influence over him. This is out of our hands -- not that it was ever in our hands. As I said, every top official in Greece is aware of this, from the President down. I assume they will take steps to ensure safety. The Greek and Italian scientists involved with this are impressive people who know a great deal about nuclear physics. To give credit where it is due, Rossi did assure me that safety precautions are in place, and that the proper authorities have been alerted. He is an experienced engineer who has successfully developed heavy equipment. I trust him, and I believe he has alerted the authorities. But I worry that perhaps these authorities have not given this enough thought. I wonder if they realize they are dealing with a new kind of nuclear reactor. I told Rossi and others that, in my opinion, before a single Rossi reactor goes into service at a customer site, hundreds of reactors should be tested by national laboratories, product safety experts, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) and others. The NIH should expose rats and other lab animals to the reactor to be sure it has no biological effects. Normally, in the U.S. you are not allowed to sell even a low powered toy that has not been vetted by safety agencies and the UL. So I have always assumed that a nuclear reactor that operates by unknown principles must be throughly investigated by thousands of experts, and tested for thousands of hours before it is used. The public demands such high safety standards in the 21st century. That is why, for example, new automobile models are crash tested, demolishing millions of dollars in equipment. I suppose that hundreds of millions of dollars must be spent on the safety testing of the Rossi device. The development of the Prius automobile cost roughly $1 billion, much of it for safety. I was astonished to hear that industrialists intend to go into production for only $280 million (200 million euros). That is enough to build a factory but it seems like only a small fraction of what is needed for modern product safety testing. I worry that the public is alarmed by the Fukushima disaster -- as it should be -- and if it becomes widely known that Defkalion is installing a new type of nuclear reactor that has not been thoroughly tested, there may be a backlash. This kind of safety testing does not add anything to the final cost of automobiles and other products, by the way. On the contrary, it reduces the cost. Modern automobiles cost far less overall than they did in the 1960s, because they are so much safer. When you factor in the cost of insurance and the $230 billion in U.S. hospital bills from auto accidents, the cost of crash testing is trivial in comparison. I told all of this to Rossi and others, but they disagreed with me. There is nothing more I can do. Rossi and his backers politely told me to shut up and let them handle this, and to stop making trouble by circulating alarming e-mails. They would probably tell you the same thing. You are not in a position to tell the President of Greece and assorted billionaires what to do. - Jed
http://porosenok.vnt.ru/taras/home.html
одна планета один народ
|
| |
| |
|
