Letters to the Senate request hearings on DOE and USPTO.

12 Replies to “Letters to the Senate request hearings on DOE and USPTO.”

1. Pingback: Letters to the Senate request hearings on DOE and USPO. | eCat Now! – Rossi eCat News

2. I sent the following to each fax number last night at work:

   There is a new clean energy technology that is 1/10th the cost of coal. Don’t believe me? Watch this video by a Nobel prize winner in physics: http://pesn.com/2011/06/23/9501856_Nobel_laureate_touts_E-Cat_cold_fusion/

   Still don’t believe me? It convinced the Swedish Skeptics Society: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece

   LENR using nickel. Incredibly: Ni+H+K2CO3(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. Here is a detailed description of the device and formula from a US government contract: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

   Here is a PowerPoint presentation by George Miley of the University of Illinois who has successfully replicated the LENR “cold fusion” reaction: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20498ES%20Energy%20Storage%20Systems/Nuclear%20Battery%20using%20Clusters%20in%20Nanomaterials.pptx

   According to Forbes, electricity will be “too cheap to meter” if Rossi’s Oct 28 demonstration succeeds: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/

   Here’s the latest, according to MSNBC it passed the test: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45153076/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TrNo9rJqwe4

   By the way, here is a current survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html

   Brad Arnold
   3033 Monterey Av
   St Louis Park, MN 55416
   952-924-0076
   dobermanmacleod@gmail.com

   1. Wow, Doberman, you dog you! Thanks so much for participating.
      Your faxes will arrive before the letters, and so we’ll have a 1-2!

      It’s hard to say there will be an effect.
      I do know that we have to get ahead of the legislators and DIRECT their action, as opposed to them acting, and us following.
      We don’t want the Patent Office re-routing LENR applications.
      We don’t want years of regulation delaying the implementation of the technology.
      It’s gonna hurt, no doubt. But the sooner, the better.

      This initial effort is an educational one, but it also pre-supposes an informed public that demands clear action in support of public access to clean energy for millenia of prosperity for all life on Earth.

      Many thanks to you.

      1. Any response from any of these folks? I’d love to see them. I’d also like to know who did not respond… or who responded with a form letter.

         1. Are you kidding?? Those US Senators don’t respond…particularly when they aren’t from your state. In fact, I’ve been sending a series of faxes, letters, and emails to my two Minnesota US Senators with virtually no results. Even my US House member (the only Muslim in Congress – Ellison), I’ve been virtually harrassing (given the number of faxes, emails, and letters I’ve sent), and the only result is that his office was calling my home looking for campaign donations.

            There is only one way I could get results – give a large campagn donation. Even then, these guys operate within a given ideology, so if the issue isn’t part of their party’s dogma, or again, if I am not recognized as a cash cow for them, then the blow it off. Frankly, it is so sick – to keep myself from getting depressed I just cop the attitude that at least their “tender mercies” don’t consist of trying to stifle it for the sake of their big corporate campaign donators like energy companies or utilities.

            1. Wow, Brad, I’m so glad to hear you’ve been writing your legislators. It doesn’t matter that its ignored now. At some point, the awareness will peak and then, well let’s just hope the action taken is positive.

               It was suggested to begin writing media. Newspapers, magazines, TV journalists and reporters. We’ve got to get the word to the general public, so that when the time comes, they’ll be able to Say Yes to Cold Fusion.

         2. I haven’t heard of anyone responding yet. The contact would be David J. Nagel, a long-time researcher currently in DC. But I don’t know that anyone’s contacted him yet.

            Sigh.

3. Ruby Carat is going to be at TED-ex Fort Lauderdale!
   http://www.tedxftl.com/speakers.html
   On 10th Dec from Noon.

   More power to you, Madam. We will be there with you.

   1. Thank you Arthur. 18 minutes of front and center cold fusion education.

      Perhaps I can get some steam for a more theatrical effect!

4. skeptical viewpoints re Rossi: John Pasquarette: Rich Murray 2011.11.11

   megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water — cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 2011.11.10

   from Rich Murray rmforall@gmail.com
   reply-to vortex-l@eskimo.com
   to vortex-L@eskimo.com,
   Rich Murray ,
   Rich Murray
   date Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:54 AM
   subject [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31

   megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water —
   cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31

   [ Rich Murray: this nail in the coffin goes right to the point…
   using Rossi’s own data… ]

   http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/H-Ni_Fusion/message/791

   [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW

   from joshua.cude joshua.cude@yahoo.com
   to H-Ni_Fusion@yahoogroups.com
   date Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:02 AM
   subject [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW
   mailing list
   4:02 AM (1 hour ago)

   The presented evidence from the megawatt demo does not support output
   power above 70 kW in the “1 MW reactor”.

   The calculation used by Rossi and Fioravanti to claim 470 kW assumes
   that essentially all the water pumped through the system is vaporized.

   However, there is no evidence presented in the report to support that
   assumption.

   Rossi collects liquid water at the exit of the reactor, but there is
   no evidence presented that liquid cannot be carried past this
   collector, entrained in the fast flowing steam, and into the heat
   exchanger.

   The only measurement reported is the temperature of the fluid as it exits.

   This is on average about 105 C, which probably corresponds to the
   boiling point inside the conduit at an elevated pressure due to the
   formation of some steam.

   The fact that no independent measurement was reported of pressure or
   steam quality indicates that Fioravanti is no more competent than
   Essen and Kallunder were.

   If one accepts the notion that above 100 C, the steam is dry, then the
   total power transfer is proportional to:

   T2-T1 if T2 100

   By this calculation, at 100 C, the power transfer is about 65 kW, and
   at 100.1 C it is about 470 kW.

   The blue line in the attached figure (PowerTransfer.jpg) represents
   the result of this calculation for Rossi’s latest data in arbitrary
   units. (The plateau would be about 470 kW.)

   Or even if you want to claim that the steam is only dry when it
   reaches 105 C a few minutes later, then the power would follow the
   dashed line.

   So Rossi and Fioravanti want us to believe that although it takes 2
   hours for the power transfer to reach 65 kW (100C), it takes only a
   few minutes to go from 65 kW to 470 kW.

   The power transfer to the water is proportional to the temperature
   difference between the water and the heating elements.

   So this amounts to a claim that the temperature of the heating
   elements changes essentially discontinuously by a huge amount, and
   exactly when the water begins to boil.

   How does it know?

   And how does it know to stop increasing essentially as soon as all the
   water is vaporized?

   If the power increased by another 10%, the steam temperature would
   increase to more than 200 C.

   Yet it settles in nicely to a fairly constant temperature just above
   100 C, just as if regulated by a mixture of phases at the boiling
   point, which fluctuates a little because of irregular internal
   pressure.

   Such a discontinuous change in the temperature is simply not plausible.

   A few minutes after it reaches 100 C, the power transfer must still be
   quite close to the 65 kW, even as the temperature reaches 105 C.

   That means that the temperature is no indication of dry steam, and so
   the most we can say from the data presented, if it is accepted, is
   that the power output is higher than about 70 kW.

   No data is presented to determine how much higher.

   From: Rich Murray
   To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
   date Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM
   subject Re: [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31

   http://www.nyteknik.se//template/ver03/fragments/comment/commentsFetch.jsp?articleId=3303682&endPosition=25

   [ Comment by Joshua Cude, after his comment very similar to the post
   quoted here. ]

   It’s the old steam trick again

   In the first place, the report comes from Rossi, with no
   identification of the “customer”, so it’s just his word. We had
   Rossi’s word yesterday, so there’s nothing new today. And the
   amateurish quality of the report is amazing.

   In the second place, if you accept the data as given, there is no
   verification that the units weren’t pre-heated for any number of hours
   through the night. Again, we have only Rossi’s word.

   In the 3rd place, he’s back to his old tricks of claiming all the
   water is converted to steam, without any measurement provided to
   verify it. That gives him a big factor of 8 in the output power.

   Remove the factor of 8 for claiming dry steam without evidence, add in
   3 or 4 hours of heating during the night, and once again, there is no
   evidence for excess heat, let alone heat from nuclear reactions.
   That’s if you accept the data that is given.

   Rossi has succeeded in prolonging uncertainty again; probably because
   certainty would not further his goals.

   Joshua Cude 29 Oct 2011 02:59

   Rich Murray rmforall@gmail.com
   505-819-7388
   rich.murray11 Skype audio, video

   1. Thanks for your skeptical summary, Rich.

      Warning: This is an advocacy site and will remain free of unfounded accusations and detraction by serial commentators towards working scientists who are actually doing something other than typing will not be tolerated.

      1. I am glad you allowed my post. In December, 1996, then an age 54 home hospice care giver in Santa Fe, New Mexico since 1985, I evolved from being a naive supporter of CF to a pragmatic skeptic, as a scientific layman, providing long commonsense detailed reviews of the details of simple errors in journal articles that claimed successful experiments showing anomalies of excess heat, radiations, and/or transmutations.

         I was fairly active until about 1999, and revisit the field when some possible big breakthrough shows up, as I have always welcomed such an exciting and valuable major basic advance in science and technology.

         I believe I have rendered a positive service by keeping discussion more thorough and civil, and notice that the debate re Rossi has been very extensive and fairly polite this year.

         For months after January I tended to believe it, until skeptics presented simple posts about the role of steam and water coexistence in the throughput — the inevitable remarkably stable steam temperature of the output flow is solid proof that much steam is mixed with a fair amount of water.

         So, it is imperative that the exact amount of steam in the throughput be measured.

         Horace Heffner on Vortex-L, active proponent of CF for two decades, has labored long to give very earnest critiques of various facets of the very incomplete trail of evidence.

Comments are closed.