PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

[JouleSeeker]

Good video Steven,  is this effect scalable?  And I saw Rosie remarking on the E-Cat economic disaster topic 

Do you have access to a lab at this time for certification of a cold fusion reaction?

I don't know whether the effect is scalable, Hope -- hope so!   I guess several of us are working, experimenting along these lines so we should find out before too many months pass...

Ah... Rossi's e-cat. I've been following this and asking questions.  I would be very glad to be able to test a "Rossi device" -- I would look for gamma's from isotopes of copper allegedly produced in the reaction.

There is some recent information -- let's take a look at the latest data that has come out:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece
The used powder contains
ten percent copper
...
For copper to be formed out of nickel, the nucleus of nickel has to capture a proton. The fact that this possibly occurs in Rossi’s reactor is why the concept of cold fusion has been mentioned â€" it would consist of fusion between nuclei of nickel and hydrogen.
A term that many consider to be more accurate, however, is LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction.

Ny Teknik: For how long has the powder supposedly been used in the process?
Kullander: The powder has reportedly been used for 2.5 months continuously with an output of 10 kW (according to Rossi). It corresponds to a total energy of 18 MWh, with a consumption of up to 100 grams of nickel and two grams of hydrogen. If the production had been done with oil, two tons of oil would have been required.
Ny Teknik: What analyses have you done on the powders?
Kullander: Element analysis and isotopic analysis. At the Ã...ngström Laboratory in Uppsala, Sweden, element analysis has been made using X-ray Fluorescence (XRFS). Dr. Erik Lindahl undertook the investigation. At the Biomedical Center in Uppsala, both element analysis and isotope analysis has been done through Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS). Associate Professor Jean Pettersson has made the measurement.

Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses?
Kullander: Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.

Ny Teknik: How do you interpret the results?
Kullander: Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process. However, it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. However, there are two stable isotopes of nickel with low concentration, nickel-62 and nickel-64, which could conceivably contribute to copper production. According to Rossi copper is not among the additives. 100 grams of nickel had been used during 2.5 months of continuous heating with 10 kW output power. A straightforward calculation shows that a large proportion of the nickel must have been consumed if it was ‘burned’ in a nuclear process. It’s then somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural.

Indeed -- VERY strange that the copper in the "ash" after 2.5 months of running (with no copper initially) -- strange that the ash shows produced-copper in the "NATURAL isotopic composition".  As the scientist under-states:

it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%).  This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. .

Right -- naturally-occurring nickel, as in the initial powder -- has this isotopic composition:

Ni-58   ( 68.077% ) Ni-60   ( 26.223% ) Ni-61   ( 1.140% ) Ni-62   ( 3.634% ) Ni-64   ( 0.926% )
http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/

Adding ONE proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi will produce Copper isotopes, predominately Cu-59 and Cu-61, since the predominate isotopes of nickel are Ni-58 (68%) and Ni-60 (26.2%).  {Add one proton to Ni-58, becomes Cu-59; add proton to Ni-60, becomes Cu-61.) Furthermore, both of these copper isotopes are highly radioactive (releasing gammas) and easily detectable!  And detecting their presence via decay products would conclusively demonstrate the occurrence of the proton-capture reaction on Nickel.

  I wrote Rossi months ago and challenged him to allow gamma-detection during operation of his e-cat device.  NO positive response from him yet.  I noted:

Cu-59 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Cu-59%20EC Half life: 81.5 s â€" short enough to be VERY easy to observe and demonstrate, to determine whether actually produced or not.

                 Cu-61 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Cu-61%20EC Half life: 3.33 hrs, also short enough to be VERY easy to observe and demonstrate, to determine whether actually produced or not

But now we learn  that the end products are NOT Cu-59 (which decays to Ni-59, decays in turn to cobalt-59 finally) and Cu-61, but rather the NATURALLY occurring isotopes found in copper, namely copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%) [percents are approx.].   

Now how do you explain THAT?  easy -- its CONTAMINATION of natural copper into his device.   That's my preliminary conclusion.  This conclusion is supported by the observed IRON (11%) in the final powder, see scientists' data released above.  If there is NO contamination, then where did all that IRON come from? 

BUT--  If its proton capture on nickel, as claimed by Rossi -- then he's got some EXPLAINING TO DO.   How do you get copper-63 (70%) with ONE proton capture on natural nickel?  And- How do you get copper-65 (30%) with ONE proton capture on natural nickel?    We're talking about NEUTRONS coming out of nowhere? where? in order to get up to the naturally-occuring ratio of Cu-63(70%) and Cu-65 (30)%.  Where do these neutrons come from, in just the right ratios?

Do you grasp the problem? One more time:  proton capture on the predominant isotope of NICKEL, Nickle-58 (68%) would produce Copper-59, not the observed Cu-63 (and Cu-65).
You have to add FOUR more NEUTRONS (not protons) to Cu-59 to get to stable Cu-63, and do it in less time than it takes for Cu-59 to decay away (half life of Cu-59 is only 81.5 seconds).

C'mon-- we're not that gullible...  IMHO, we should be skeptical.  Rossi is claiming a very specific process, proton capture on nickel, but the experimental RESULTS do not support his claims.  Sorry.


Note from Steven Krivit of New Energy Times, regarding the Rossi claims:

But the time-honored question to ask in all situations like this is, What is the total energy balance? Anybody who gets excited about this public demonstration without such information is vulnerable to deception. The next questions to ask are, Exactly how has the energy been measured? And by whom?

A power measurement â€" without the total energy balance â€" is virtually meaningless. Without answers to these questions, this experiment and demonstration could easily be a scam. Sadly, I have been a first-hand witness to deceptions.

The red flags with Rossi have been up for months.

In October 2010, a New Energy Times reader in Italy sent the following to me:

“I imagine you are aware that Rossi’s patent [application] has been [partially] rejected in a preliminary report by the patent examiner. Piantelli also published a new WIPO patent [application] a few months ago too.

“I wish Rossi well in his endeavors although I also feel he’s claiming as an invention merely the scaling up of Piantelli’s pioneering work. Any working devices ought to be good news for mankind regardless [of] who discovered what first. If anything works, we will all get some share of the glory (and perhaps profits?).”

Today, another New Energy Times reader in Italy sent the following to me:

“Pay close attention to Andrea Rossi; he has a dirty past. Twenty years ago he was arrested for illegal importing of gold from the Swiss.

“Not only that, but in the 1980s he was involved in a scam with industrial waste. It is a complex thing to explain, but the scam cost the Lombardy region â,¬ 25 million. He honestly does not convince me as a person, and I am not convinced about the test done at Bologna today.

“Check this link: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroldragon

“In friendship, I suggest you be careful, I smell something burning.”

According to the link, in 1995, Rossi was jailed for conspiracy to engage in tax fraud for his involvement in a business that was trading precious materials between Switzerland and Italy.

[BobTEW]

Professor Jones, Have you tested the 'perpetual magnet holder'? The best and simple solid state circuit example I know of. NERDS - New Energy Renaissance Development Society.
Take two Iron Rods and two cylindrical magnets to start with.  I demo. Ohms' law within the magnet to couple of tech school instructors. They told me I was showing them a magnet has a charge or current flow and physics world would not support that idea. This was about 1985 along came SUPER- superconductivityand supermagnets. The picture of a magnet floating over wafer was my " look Ma no hands"  part of my theory. Cut a magnet in half and you have two magnets; no monopoles; power follows. When two poles attract this show the 'series' side; repulsion is 'parallel' side of the force.

[NerzhDishual]

OK Gentlemen,

Salve ingegnere Nul-Point(s) !

So, a lot of good stuffs are still cooking in the kitchen.
The  main courses are not yet served in the dining room.

You know what? I do believe that.

Actually, it sounds like Thane Heins and his followers are into something big.
I was recently told about a French experimenter who came across very
interesting results too. More to come about this when it is disclosed.

It also sounds like that *most* of our "official scientists" are lacking
curiosity and free mind. Yes, this is a truism.
Come on skeptics! Let see the evidences. 

Now, another, off topic, musical interlude.
"This drummer is at the wrong gig"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItZyaOlrb7E

BTW: Did you notice the guitar in the previously quoted vid ?
OUG ARCHIVE 7. MOT Microwave Oven Transformer Delayed Lenz Experiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGQhwSDDCQY

Actually, it again sounds like music is not contradictory with free NRG.
I have noticed that a lot of free energy experienters are also musicians.
I would bet that Nul-Point(s) is oK with this (very philosophical and profound) remark.

Very Best

PS: Spell Check sounds like to be out of order.
So, sorry for spelling mistakes.

[JouleSeeker]

Thanks, NerzhD -- yes, the Thane Heins approach is highly interesting.

Professor Jones, Have you tested the 'perpetual magnet holder'? The best and simple solid state circuit example I know of. NERDS - New Energy Renaissance Development Society.

Good suggestion, Bob.

Take two Iron Rods and two cylindrical magnets to start with.  I demo. Ohms' law within the magnet to couple of tech school instructors. They told me I was showing them a magnet has a charge or current flow and physics world would not support that idea. ...

Sounds like a fun experiment      How do you do this again?

[nul-points]

 

Salve ingegnere Nul-Point(s) !
[...]
PS: Spell Check sounds like to be out of order.
So, sorry for spelling mistakes.

LOL i  *always*   switch my SpellCheck off so that i look more like an engineer than a musician!! 

i'm looking forward to watching the 'drummer at the wrong gig' video - although i should admit that the drummer in my band always plays exactly the right thing for our music!


...so - here is a soupcon of what has been happening in 'the kitchen'...


i think i now have a better understanding of what's required to discriminate between OU and non-OU behaviour in the SJ1 variant 'Tesla Switch' circuit:

at any one time during the first phase of the experiment, one pair of NiMH cells was providing the total input supply to the circuit and a separate pair of NiMH cells was being pulse-charged whilst the circuit also supplied pulsed power to an LED and coil

looking at the resulting terminal voltage graphs we can see that one of the original supply cells, in a pair, started at a voltage of 1.263 and ended at (approximately) the same voltage at 1553.1 hours**
(** the total operational period was 1335.35 hours because i interrupted the test run for a week, whilst i was on leave)

therefore we can consider that this pair of cells has contributed zero net energy (approximately) and can be removed from the energy balance calculations for this period

during the same period, each of the cells in the other pair discharged from a terminal voltage of 1.266V down to a voltage of 1.25 (a difference of 16mV) - representing a total drop of 32mV for the two cells

if we remove the opposing voltage of the NiMH cell parallel-pair getting charged, we can supply the circuit with just one cell and the power input to the oscillator circuit should remain the same

now the net total energy input to the oscillator resulted in a terminal voltage drop of 32mV over a period of 1335.35 hours, therefore we can measure what continuous period of operation, with a single cell, results in a terminal voltage drop of 32mV: if this new period of operation is significantly less than 1335 hours then it would be strong evidence of OU operation in the SJ1 variant 'Tesla Switch' circuit


the second test phase has now been operating continuously for 1 week - how is it looking?

well, so far, the discharge slope for the oscillator circuit with a single cell (following the vertical red 'bar') appears to be very similar to the discharge slope for each cell when part of a pair in the '2 serial charge 2 parallel' arrangement  - so this supports the deduction that the power input to the oscillator is the same when the charging NiMH pair is removed and the oscillator is only supplied by a single cell

the terminal voltage has discharged by 10mV in 147 hours (6.1 days) - this represents 31% of the target voltage drop in 11% of the target time

so,  IF  the single cell continues to discharge at this rate then the target voltage drop of 32 mV will take approx. 470 hours (19.6 days)

operating the 'Tesla Switch' version of this circuit and using the same quantity of input energy would power the same load for 1335/470 = 2.84 times as long - or to put it another way, the 'Tesla Switch' arrangement would deliver 284% of the energy to the same load as that supplied by the regular SJ1 variant circuit

watch this space!
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com