Tuesday, June 9, 2015

JUST INFO FOR JUNE 9, 2015




NOTE
Today I have participated at different LENR campaigns; will tell you about the results in the coming days.

 DAILY INFO

 From the ХТЯ и ШМ site
1) Andrey Petrovich Hrishchanovich continues to work with a Rossi type reactor          
Up to temperature of 390 C no effect is observed. Probably technical hydrogen fed from bottle is not adequate. We have made our own original generator of high pressure hydrogen from Ti hydride. We have interrupted on-line transmission due to building and assembling of new reactor from quartz. For guests here is movie on YouTube about the preparation of the new reactor:                                                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Kx_ly7XHFuc

 2) Understanding attenuation of potential ionising radiation in a Parkhomov style reactor- by MFMP
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/22/understanding-attenuation-of-potential-ionising-radiation-in-a-parkhomov-style-reactor-mfmp/ 

3) If you were in Andrea Rossi's shoes what would you have done- by Andy Kumar
4) Hideo Kozima launches CFRL News No. 94- in English  
http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/,
http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00210/

 5) The Magic of Mr. Rossi (English Translation) - ECAT Cold Fusion Generator Validations YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POeRJbfphe8

 6) Non- electro-magnetic radiation
НЕЭЛЕКТРОМАГНИТНОЕ ИЗЛУЧЕНИЕ - ПРИРОДА ЯВ
http://sfu.su/showthread.php?p=37450
Interesting, I will come back there.

 7) Saudi Arabia Oil Minister Expects End of Fossil Fuel Exports by Mid-Century
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/27/saudi-arabia-oil-minister-expects-end-of-fossil-fuel-exports-by-mid-century/
2034 is more exact, come and call  me Dale prophet if I err!
And for yesterday all fossil fuels will be eliminated before 2075, I bet.
Slow progress is an oxymoron.
AXIL's POINTS OF VIEW

 I am disappointed in Rossi because Rossi has allowed the open source LENR community to be misled by the Lugano report. We know now that the mouse is the only reactor type that is powered under the Rossi latest reactor architecture. The Cat is not powered and depends on the mouse as its activator. Rossi knew full well when he gave this type of reactor to the Lugano testers that it could only produce power at a level just over unity. He knew that the Lugano power production numbers must have been in error because a Mouse cannot produce all that power as Lagano claimed.

Rossi also has told us that the mouse produces power just above over unity. Real power comes when the mouse activates N numbers of non powered sub-reactor units that he calls Cats.

The errors that the Lugano team made in measuring the temperature and power production capability of the ‘Mouse” that Rossi gave the Lagano test team was left unchallenged even though Rossi knew that a mouse can only produce power just over unity. When the Lugano errors are corrected, the Lagano power adjustment shows power production just over unity.

The open source community including MFMP is hell bent in showing power production from the “mouse” to meet or exceed the invalid numbers that Rossi has let stand from the results presented from the Lugano test.

The Lugano test team had their own agenda in not correcting these overblown power production numbers. That agenda is probably centered in getting support for there own research funding from the authorities.

All this subterfuge is not good for LENR.

The open source community should move on from showing the inflated power production numbers that Lagano has promulgated, and concentrate on getting the “mouse” to activate N numbers of Cats so that LENR can show some real solid over unity energy production. 







Posted by at

4 comments:

  1. dsjm1June 9, 2015 at 2:12 PM

    Axil,
    I am a bit puzzled by your comments re Rossi & cat-mouse. I know you are referring to the Lugarno test and it is clear something has happened that triggered your negative views on what Andrea Rossi is up to re that test and report.

    My surprise is as much about why you are only saying this now ?. What did Rossi do that prompted such a savage critique ?

    For those of us without in-depth expertise of the energy 'spinning' around in the particles of the Standard Model, it is hard enough following the nuances of the LENR processes.

    So, what happened that triggered your comment re cat-mouse and deception.

    Thanks

    DSM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AxilJune 9, 2015 at 7:00 PM

      “something has happened that triggered your negative views on what Andrea Rossi is up to re that test and report.”

      The weight of logic became so great, that it broke the camels back. We use experimental information to define the dots and then we try to connect them. When false information is fed to us, the job of putting it all together becomes exponentially more difficult. When we get a new item of information, we must now ask, is this true information or is it a bit of planted disinformation.

      When the Lagano report came out, we were told that the testers brought the outside temperature of the reactor up to 1400C during the latter stages of the test. We knew that the core of the reactor would need to produce a temperature far above the melting point of nickel to produce a outside reactor temperature of 1400C. Yet Rossi said nothing even though he had run extensive tests to characterize the dogbone reactor. Rossi had never seen the outside of his reactor hit 1400Cin all the many tests that he ran on the Dogbone, and he would of had to made very sure what the Dogbone would do in the Lagano test in his in-house preparatory tests. He knew it was impossible for the reactor to get that hot. Yet he said nothing and let the report of this bad data stand. Rossi also knew that the Dogbone could not produce all that power or produce a COP as high as 3.6.

      After a time, MFMP showed that the temperature readings had to be high because they calibrated the Lagano temperature sensor. MFMP stated that the main gage of reactor performance was invalid. Yet the Lagano test team said nothing and Rossi remained silent.

      Then we find out that the mouse produces a COP just over 1 and that the mouse is the activator of the reactor cluster. So the Dogbone must be a mouse. The adjusted COP from the Lagano test based on the error in the measured temperature was something under 2.

      Rossi tells us: “No, the charge is the same, we have only one charge in that kind of reactor; by the way: if the ssm is not adopted, the distinction between Cat and Mouse vanishes.”

      Since the Cat and the Mouse are the same, and the mouse has a COP just over 1, then the Cat must also have a COP that also is just over 1. If follows that all powered Dogbone reactors must have a COP just over one. The get a COP of 3 or more SSM must be invoked. And yet Rossi says nothing about any powered Dogbone type reactor who claim a COP above 3.

      The conclusion logic forces upon us is that any experimenter who claims a COP for a Dogbone type reactor that is not just over 1 must be in error or is intentionally producing bad data.

      Delete
    2. Alain_CoJune 10, 2015 at 1:12 AM

      I disagree with Axil position.

      The lugano calorimetry is dubious, because the lack of calibration at high temperature.

      however the protocol itself, freedom to test, show that the manufacturer, IH, was confident in a positive test.
      The isotopic shift show something serious happened, maybe not so poweful, but LENR.

      the fact that lugano was an independent test show that E-cat is not a scam. thus the ferrara tests are genuine, and the conspiracy theory could be dumped.
      the calibration at ferrara was correct, the emissivity controlled, and the COP was clearly high.

      it would be suicidal for IH to send a mild COP reactor to Lugano.

      my position is that Lugano test have to be redone with the experience of the last one.

      for Parkhomov-style experiments based on Lugano test, I think there are many tricks that we ignore, and many useless tricks that we imagine... It will be slow and hard to replicate.

      Delete
  2. dsjm1June 11, 2015 at 12:21 AM

    Axil, Thanks for the reply. In your answer you mention "Then we find out that the mouse produces a COP just over 1 and that the mouse is the activator of the reactor cluster. " - I was wondering where that info came to light ?

    Thanks Doug M

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)