Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
Their natural behavior is for me the best evidence. Nelson during his own test concluded the same. of course it is not enough for nay-believers who will only suicide when there is no shadow, and even... for hard skeptic, they should be very much interest, but keep some romm for doubt, because of the few shadows. for people who have to decide, and who can loose form inaction as much as from a scam, it is time to sign a NDA. if a French have signed, sure he did a test. We won't trust our mother for the change. 2013/7/25 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com Alan Fletcher quoted MFMP: We had the fortune to be in direct Skype chat contact with Mats Lewin during the experiment and it was definitely live, we were able to ask Mats to pose questions, challenges and do additional testing during the run and saw near real time responses including watching him respond to our requests This, together with the fact that the demo was many hours long, is an interesting situation. People were able to send Mats Lewan a question, and he could take steps to look into it. At least in theory, either - he would track down the piece of information, - or he would be prevented from doing it for some reason (e.g., intellectual property). Since the investigation can proceed in an iterative fashion, and there is plenty of time to pursue it, skeptics have an opportunity to ask that actions be taken, like moves on a chessboard. If Defkalion are faking, they must either shift things around and change the fake, or they must prevent Lewan from looking at something, or they must devise a very sophisticated fake. With the information obtained from the last move, observers can then come up with the next query. So presumably you could get either to a checkmate (there's something obvious that is preventing critical information from being disclosed) or you could get to a situation where nothing is obviously amiss, even after looking into various details. This approach does not guarantee no funny business, but Defkalion would have to be audacious and brave to submit to those rules if they are trying to game things (watching the video right now, I see no indication that they are). It would be nice if future demonstrations were to have this interactive component, and skeptics were to come up with a kind of protocol to rule out the simple fakes up front, requiring them to focus their attention on more sophisticated ruses than cheese power. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
On 07/24/2013 06:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I think that a demonstration of this nature is valuable. I am pleased they did it. But it is no substitute for the kind of test Levi et al. did of Rossi's device. I mean Levi et al. used their own instruments; they went back three times and improved the technique each time; they spent several days; they used a video camera to be certain there was no interference. That is much better proof than Defkalion can offer with a single, 8-hour video test. It is a better test than the one that Levi and company performed. This is a complete and total, independent, replication of Rossi's method; even if they don't plan to write it up. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: It is a better test than the one that Levi and company performed. This is a complete and total, independent, replication of Rossi's method; even if they don't plan to write it up. I did not see this test, but I gather the instruments were supplied by Defkalion, and the only independent observer was Mats. I think it is better to have a group of independent observers. Plus: They should use their own instruments. They should spend a week or two, returning several times with improved instruments and techniques. They should think about what they saw for a few weeks, draft a paper, and discuss it among themselves before publishing. This is better than jumping to a conclusion in real time. You make fewer mistakes. Science is done best at a slow, deliberate pace, with rigor. As I said, a video demonstration has value. In some ways it is better than a test, but it is no substitute for a test. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
I think 28 years is too slow...we all know the various reasons why. I like
the spirit of DGT's team staying up 24 hours making it happen, that is the
real human spirit at work.
Stewart
On Thursday, July 25, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cchayniepub...@gmail.com'); wrote:
It is a better test than the one that Levi and company performed. This
is a complete and total, independent, replication of Rossi's method;
even if they don't plan to write it up.
I did not see this test, but I gather the instruments were supplied by
Defkalion, and the only independent observer was Mats. I think it is better
to have a group of independent observers. Plus:
They should use their own instruments.
They should spend a week or two, returning several times with improved
instruments and techniques.
They should think about what they saw for a few weeks, draft a paper, and
discuss it among themselves before publishing. This is better than jumping
to a conclusion in real time. You make fewer mistakes.
Science is done best at a slow, deliberate pace, with rigor.
As I said, a video demonstration has value. In some ways it is better than
a test, but it is no substitute for a test.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
I think it is important to distinguish between a test and a demo. This was the latter. When you demo software, you are not obligated to allow some coders from Microsoft to pore over the code. In a way, the glitch that forced them to bring down the reactor was a good thing. Frauds, like narcissists, are incapable of error. --- I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: It is a better test than the one that Levi and company performed. This is a complete and total, independent, replication of Rossi's method; even if they don't plan to write it up. I did not see this test, but I gather the instruments were supplied by Defkalion, and the only independent observer was Mats. I think it is better to have a group of independent observers. Plus: They should use their own instruments. They should spend a week or two, returning several times with improved instruments and techniques. They should think about what they saw for a few weeks, draft a paper, and discuss it among themselves before publishing. This is better than jumping to a conclusion in real time. You make fewer mistakes. Science is done best at a slow, deliberate pace, with rigor. As I said, a video demonstration has value. In some ways it is better than a test, but it is no substitute for a test. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
On 07/25/2013 09:55 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: It is a better test than the one that Levi and company performed. This is a complete and total, independent, replication of Rossi's method; even if they don't plan to write it up. I did not see this test, but I gather the instruments were supplied by Defkalion, and the only independent observer was Mats. I think it is better to have a group of independent observers. Plus: No, what I mean is: Defkalion IS the group that replicated Rossi's work, from the ground up. The only thing that some people may think comes up short, are possibly the credentials of the Defkalion team. Nevertheless, they made it work, in their lab, with their equipment, and succeeded in their minds. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: No, what I mean is: Defkalion IS the group that replicated Rossi's work, from the ground up. Ah, I see. That is unclear. Rossi says they had no knowledge of his work so they could not have replicated. If that is true, they found an independent method of producing heat from the Ni-H nanoparticle system. We do not know whether this is a replication or some other method. I can't judge whether this is a replication because I do not know how either Rossi or Defkalion does what they do. These are trade secrets. In the open literature there are several claims of Ni-H such as Mills and Piantelli. Most recently, Mizuno replicated this, in the paper I presented here at ICCF18 in a poster session. (See the News at LENR-CANR.org.) Mizuno's results are on the same scale as Rossi's or Defkalions, normalized to the mass of nanoparticles. I doubt that Mizuno is using the same method as Rossi or Defkalion. Kitamura is also reporting good results with Ni-H. He says it only works at high temperatures. So there is increasing independent evidence for Ni-H cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
On 07/25/2013 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I can't judge whether this is a replication because I do not know how either Rossi or Defkalion does what they do. These are trade secrets. You're right, we can't know; but we do know that Rossi and Defkalion were working together two years ago. We know that Defkalion had tested Rossi's device and were familiar with his method. The only thing they may not have had access to was the nickel material in the reactor, and the internal construction of it. The fact that they were able to reproduce the reaction, and do it better than Rossi could do it two years ago, tells us that they discovered a material that works, along with Rossi, and Mills, and perhaps Miley and others. It is a replication in a fundamental sense. If a hundred different teams replicated this nickel-hydrogen reaction using various different types of nickel and hydrogen, there would be no more dissent over the reality of the effect. If everyone can do it, then there must be something to it. We, who have followed this for twenty-four years, forget that to the rest of the world, cold fusion was a mistake. We're still at stage one, trying to show others, hey this looks real. If a few more groups of people can replicate high power, nickel-hydrogen reactions, then thousands of people will start trying and that will speed up the research and engineering quite a bit. The demonstration was really good. They ran a control run which showed no effect. Then they degassed it, and ran the device with hydrogen, and immediately the effect became very clear. They even used the heat calculations 'as if' the water were never converted to steam, even though Mats Lewan testified that there was NO water in the out flow; so the COP was much higher than the calculated value. The only thing the critics can say now is that both Rossi and Defkalion are defrauding us. There is no other explanation than the obvious. Everyone who's been following this for years should watch this demo. http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US Craig
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: The fact that they were able to reproduce the reaction, and do it better than Rossi could do it two years ago, tells us that they discovered a material that works, along with Rossi, and Mills, and perhaps Miley and others. It is a replication in a fundamental sense. I agree. It is a replication in the scientific sense, rather than by the standards of industry. (It may also be the latter. Perhaps Defkalion did see a sample of Rossi's material and they reverse engineered it.) If a hundred different teams replicated this nickel-hydrogen reaction using various different types of nickel and hydrogen, there would be no more dissent over the reality of the effect. Well, 200 groups replicated Pd-D cold fusion and there is still dissent. But I agree there should not be. Certainly the case for Ni-H has grown stronger. The demonstration was really good. They ran a control run which showed no effect. . . . I look forward to seeing it. It is a little ironic that the people here at the conference probably have the least information on this presentation this week. We are busy with other presentations and with the tour of the lab, which was very interesting! I am glad it was recorded. I hope it remains on file. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I am glad it was recorded. I hope it remains on file. Brian of SQUID posted the juicy bits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHEtnTO3h6s
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: No, what I mean is: Defkalion IS the group that replicated Rossi's work, from the ground up. Ah, I see. That is unclear. Rossi says they had no knowledge of his work so they could not have replicated. If that is true, they found an independent method of producing heat from the Ni-H nanoparticle system. We do not know whether this is a replication or some other method. I can't judge whether this is a replication because I do not know how either Rossi or Defkalion does what they do. These are trade secrets. In the open literature there are several claims of Ni-H such as Mills and Piantelli. Most recently, Mizuno replicated this, in the paper I presented here at ICCF18 in a poster session. (See the News at LENR-CANR.org.) Mizuno's results are on the same scale as Rossi's or Defkalions, normalized to the mass of nanoparticles. I doubt that Mizuno is using the same method as Rossi or Defkalion. Any idea how much Mizuno's experiment cost? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
On 07/25/2013 02:46 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I am glad it was recorded. I hope it remains on file. Brian of SQUID posted the juicy bits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHEtnTO3h6s The video quality is not as good as the videos at http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US I can't read the screen very well. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: We had the fortune to be in direct Skype chat contact with Mats Lewin during the experiment and it was definitely live, we were able to ask Mats to pose questions . . . I heard about that after it happened. The MFMP people have a good impression. I was busy with sessions and other things while this was happening. Later in the day the rebroadcast did not work, so I missed most of the Defkalion test. I look forward to seeing it next week. I think that a demonstration of this nature is valuable. I am pleased they did it. But it is no substitute for the kind of test Levi et al. did of Rossi's device. I mean Levi et al. used their own instruments; they went back three times and improved the technique each time; they spent several days; they used a video camera to be certain there was no interference. That is much better proof than Defkalion can offer with a single, 8-hour video test. We can have both. We can have video demonstrations and also third-party tests. Video demonstrations serve some useful purposes that Levi cannot serve. Eventually we must have completely independent replications. Rossi has apparently met that test, having his devices manufactured in the U.S. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
Why do you claim that Defkalion did not have extensive 3rd party tests? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:50:50 PM Why do you claim that Defkalion did not have extensive 3rd party tests? They announced them (back when they had a blog), and they released one inconclusive report (with redacted names), ISTR with some gummint-lab related people acting on their own behalf.
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
They announced them (back when they had a blog), and they released one inconclusive report (with redacted names), ISTR with some gummint-lab related people acting on their own behalf. Listed here : October 22, 2012 : http://peswiki.com/index.php/News:121021:Defkalion_Posts_Independent_Data_Showing_3x_Overunity%3B_NASA_Blushes Report links have rotted
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
You underestimate them! ;) 2013/7/24 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com They announced them (back when they had a blog), and they released one inconclusive report (with redacted names), ISTR with some gummint-lab related people acting on their own behalf. Listed here : October 22, 2012 : http://peswiki.com/index.php/News:121021:Defkalion_Posts_Independent_Data_Showing_3x_Overunity%3B_NASA_Blushes Report links have rotted -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
So you have inside information that is not an estimate but a measurement? On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: You underestimate them! ;) 2013/7/24 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com They announced them (back when they had a blog), and they released one inconclusive report (with redacted names), ISTR with some gummint-lab related people acting on their own behalf. Listed here : October 22, 2012 : http://peswiki.com/index.php/News:121021:Defkalion_Posts_Independent_Data_Showing_3x_Overunity%3B_NASA_Blushes Report links have rotted -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you claim that Defkalion did not have extensive 3rd party tests? Perhaps they have. I do not have any information on this, or any test results. Perhaps they have had tests under NDAs. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps they have. I do not have any information on this, or any test results. Perhaps they have had tests under NDAs. I recall claims to the effect that they have some big partnerships underway or under the works. If this is correct, I assume there will have been some verifications under NDA. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
Alan Fletcher quoted MFMP: We had the fortune to be in direct Skype chat contact with Mats Lewin during the experiment and it was definitely live, we were able to ask Mats to pose questions, challenges and do additional testing during the run and saw near real time responses including watching him respond to our requests This, together with the fact that the demo was many hours long, is an interesting situation. People were able to send Mats Lewan a question, and he could take steps to look into it. At least in theory, either - he would track down the piece of information, - or he would be prevented from doing it for some reason (e.g., intellectual property). Since the investigation can proceed in an iterative fashion, and there is plenty of time to pursue it, skeptics have an opportunity to ask that actions be taken, like moves on a chessboard. If Defkalion are faking, they must either shift things around and change the fake, or they must prevent Lewan from looking at something, or they must devise a very sophisticated fake. With the information obtained from the last move, observers can then come up with the next query. So presumably you could get either to a checkmate (there's something obvious that is preventing critical information from being disclosed) or you could get to a situation where nothing is obviously amiss, even after looking into various details. This approach does not guarantee no funny business, but Defkalion would have to be audacious and brave to submit to those rules if they are trying to game things (watching the video right now, I see no indication that they are). It would be nice if future demonstrations were to have this interactive component, and skeptics were to come up with a kind of protocol to rule out the simple fakes up front, requiring them to focus their attention on more sophisticated ruses than cheese power. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
'also to cut cables' Cool. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: Here on his blog: http://matslew.wordpress.com/**2013/07/24/comments-on-** defkalion-reactor-demo-in-**milan/http://matslew.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/comments-on-defkalion-reactor-demo-in-milan/ Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
From: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:37:32 PM ' also to cut cables' Cool. Offer made, but not accepted. (I made the suggestion in the comments). So Mary's still got something to hang on to. He says he did check the flow rate, and for DC ... plus the output changing from water to steam-only. All in all a good report (although he seems surprised as to his role ... I guess the CERN scientist never showed up. )
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
If all the water was vaporized, the output thermal power would have been above 27 kW. Sounds very thrilling! I think the real mystery now is why given all the scientists all over the world working on this they can't even get one measly consistent reproducible experiment going with a reasonable COP. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:37:32 PM ' also to cut cables' Cool. Offer made, but not accepted. (I made the suggestion in the comments). So Mary's still got something to hang on to. He says he did check the flow rate, and for DC ... plus the output changing from water to steam-only. All in all a good report (although he seems surprised as to his role ... I guess the CERN scientist never showed up. )
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I think the real mystery now is why given all the scientists all over the world working on this they can't even get one measly consistent reproducible experiment going with a reasonable COP. This is not even slightly mysterious. If you had any idea difficult it is, you would be amazed that the experiments are as reproducible as they are. If you understood anything about the effect you would realize that the COP makes no difference; no one is trying to improve it at present; and it would be a waste of time and resources to do so. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
Let me add: . . . going with a reasonable COP. This is pure bullshit. Many experiments have infinite COPs, with no input power. Yet the skeptics and Spinnaker ignore there results and natter on about low COPs. Once the reaction can be controlled, ramping it up or improving the COP will minor engineering problems. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
On 2013-07-24 02:49, blaze spinnaker wrote: If all the water was vaporized, the output thermal power would have been above 27 kW. Sounds very thrilling! They've also been conservative about heat losses through the insulating reactor enclosure, not accounted for. During the inactive Argon run only about 85% the input energy made it to the coolant outlet. Losses might have increased with temperature during the active run. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan
You're purposely misunderstanding what I'm saying and just talking past me because you're overly emotional about all this.I know you think LENR is your personal crusade, but don't drag me into that. The fact is, two completely separate teams have now seemingly achieved these impressive(even magical) demonstrations of massive sustained COP seemingly at will. And yet there still doesn't exist a simple consistent, reproducible experiment showing any sort of reasonable sustained excess thermal energy. This is a puzzle, no matter how you slice it. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Let me add: . . . going with a reasonable COP. This is pure bullshit. Many experiments have infinite COPs, with no input power. Yet the skeptics and Spinnaker ignore there results and natter on about low COPs. Once the reaction can be controlled, ramping it up or improving the COP will minor engineering problems. - Jed
