Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
Yes, the Cerron paper was mentioned on MFMP site. That is what prompted my post. Harry On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: For what it's worth, Harry, there is a bit of early history that played out in a way similar to what you're describing. Back in 1994, Focardi, Habel and Piantelli published this: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Focardi-AnomalousHeatNi-H-NuovoCimento.pdf After which some folks at CERN published this: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1996/1996Cerron-InvestigationOfAnomalous.pdf YMMV. Jeff On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: ... Instead Celani, Piantelli, Forcardi discovered that when nickel aborbs hygrodgen the thermal charactersitics of nickel change (by making it less reflective)? And Celani has discovered that this change is correlated with a drop in the electrical resistance of the nickle. Is that it? harry
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: Celani was not able to allow long sustanable mode because this requires a higher temperature, which is possible but not for a long period of time in such transparant tube. No, that is not an issue. He wrapped the cell in insulation. This allowed him to lower the input power a great deal while maintaining the activation temperature. But he was not able to lower input to zero. He hoped to do that to eliminate all doubts about the calorimetry. His plan was to trigger the effect with a heater and then gradually back off all heater power. I do not know why this did not work. I did not discuss it with him. I heard that it did not work. If the effect is an artifact, that would be a reason for it not to work. I maybe be wrong but I think you told us his original plan was to first raise the temperature of the cell. That would have been consistent with how the E-cat operates, which supposedly begins to produce heat at a certain temperature but doesn't become (temporarily) self-sustaining until a higher temperature is reached. Harry
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I maybe be wrong but I think you told us his original plan was to first raise the temperature of the cell. That would have been consistent with how the E-cat operates, which supposedly begins to produce heat at a certain temperature but doesn't become (temporarily) self-sustaining until a higher temperature is reached. I do not recall hearing that from Celani. You are saying that Rossi reports two different critical temperatures? One at which the reaction begins, and another, higher temperature at which it self-sustains? If that is how it works, that's interesting. At ICCF17 Celani said he would insulate the cell so that input power could be reduced after the reaction turns on, gradually reducing it to zero. In principle that should work. In practice it might be difficult or even dangerous, since you cannot easily balance input and output, and it might overheat or go out of control. Anyway, I have heard that he tried this. He was able to reduce input considerably. But not all the way down to zero. That does not prove the effect is an artifact, but it is not good news. Conversely, if he *had* been able to do that, it *would* prove the effect is real. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I maybe be wrong but I think you told us his original plan was to first raise the temperature of the cell. That would have been consistent with how the E-cat operates, which supposedly begins to produce heat at a certain temperature but doesn't become (temporarily) self-sustaining until a higher temperature is reached. I do not recall hearing that from Celani. You are saying that Rossi reports two different critical temperatures? One at which the reaction begins, and another, higher temperature at which it self-sustains? If that is how it works, that's interesting. I thought the data in the Essen/Kullander report suggested that is how the E-Cat performs . Maybe I am recalling incorrectly. Harry
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
This information may have originated from my simulation model of Rossi's device. I have written about it on several posts in the past, but I do not recall that he supports the idea. It would be interesting if you know of a reference from Rossi where he acknowledges that these two critical temperatures exist. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 19, 2012 6:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I maybe be wrong but I think you told us his original plan was to first raise the temperature of the cell. That would have been consistent with how the E-cat operates, which supposedly begins to produce heat at a certain temperature but doesn't become (temporarily) self-sustaining until a higher temperature is reached. I do not recall hearing that from Celani. You are saying that Rossi reports two different critical temperatures? One at which the reaction begins, and another, higher temperature at which it self-sustains? If that is how it works, that's interesting. I thought the data in the Essen/Kullander report suggested that is how the E-Cat performs . Maybe I am recalling incorrectly. Harry
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
Sorry, I don't. harry On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:30 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This information may have originated from my simulation model of Rossi's device. I have written about it on several posts in the past, but I do not recall that he supports the idea. It would be interesting if you know of a reference from Rossi where he acknowledges that these two critical temperatures exist. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 19, 2012 6:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I maybe be wrong but I think you told us his original plan was to first raise the temperature of the cell. That would have been consistent with how the E-cat operates, which supposedly begins to produce heat at a certain temperature but doesn't become (temporarily) self-sustaining until a higher temperature is reached. I do not recall hearing that from Celani. You are saying that Rossi reports two different critical temperatures? One at which the reaction begins, and another, higher temperature at which it self-sustains? If that is how it works, that's interesting. I thought the data in the Essen/Kullander report suggested that is how the E-Cat performs . Maybe I am recalling incorrectly. Harry
[Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
... Instead Celani, Piantelli, Forcardi discovered that when nickel aborbs hygrodgen the thermal charactersitics of nickel change (by making it less reflective)? And Celani has discovered that this change is correlated with a drop in the electrical resistance of the nickle. Is that it? harry
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
I do not think it is clear yet what has been discovered. The story so far: At ICCF17, McKubre called into question Celani's calorimetry. Celani said he would try to put these doubts to rest by making the cell self sustain. He tried, but he could not. That's bad news. Celani himself said the calorimetry was kind of primitive thermometry measuring the temperature at one point only. That is not how to do it well. If the temperature rise is large enough that can be definitive. But it is better to improve the calorimetry, I think. The MFM people set up a configuration similar to his. They got much more stable heat. As far as I am concerned, that's bad too. It is much too stable. Real anomalous heat does not look like that. Even Arata's ultra-stable heat declined gradually over time. The MFM found that one of the temperature sensors does not agree with the others, and it is stuck at the level it should be with no anomalous heat. That's really bad news! If it were malfunctioning it would not be at that temperature. It would be at some random temperature. All in all, things are not looking good for this wire experiment, but I would not draw any conclusions yet. We may never be able to draw conclusions. One conclusion I would reach, that I reached 20 years ago in fact, is that you really have to understand calorimetry to do these experiments. A lot of people don't understand it. I wish they would read Ed's paper on the subject, and books. They are learning. They can do it again. It will not take long, and it will not take a lot of effort to improve the calorimeter and try again. When you do research, you do things over and over and OVER again. It is like programming, or cooking, or -- as Martin used to say -- like riding a beat-up old bicycle. You do it until it is second-nature. You develop a deep feel for the instrument and its quirks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
Celani was not able to allow long sustanable mode because this requires a higher temperature, which is possible but not for a long period of time in such transparant tube. On Monday, December 17, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: I do not think it is clear yet what has been discovered. The story so far: At ICCF17, McKubre called into question Celani's calorimetry. Celani said he would try to put these doubts to rest by making the cell self sustain. He tried, but he could not. That's bad news.
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I do not think it is clear yet what has been discovered. The story so far: At ICCF17, McKubre called into question Celani's calorimetry. Celani said he would try to put these doubts to rest by making the cell self sustain. He tried, but he could not. That's bad news. Celani himself said the calorimetry was kind of primitive thermometry measuring the temperature at one point only. That is not how to do it well. If the temperature rise is large enough that can be definitive. But it is better to improve the calorimetry, I think. The MFM people set up a configuration similar to his. They got much more stable heat. As far as I am concerned, that's bad too. It is much too stable. Real anomalous heat does not look like that. Even Arata's ultra-stable heat declined gradually over time. The MFM found that one of the temperature sensors does not agree with the others, and it is stuck at the level it should be with no anomalous heat. That's really bad news! If it were malfunctioning it would not be at that temperature. It would be at some random temperature. All in all, things are not looking good for this wire experiment, but I would not draw any conclusions yet. We may never be able to draw conclusions. One conclusion I would reach, that I reached 20 years ago in fact, is that you really have to understand calorimetry to do these experiments. A lot of people don't understand it. I wish they would read Ed's paper on the subject, and books. Ed Storms first post on the MFPM site sounded arrogant. However, I suspect even he will learn something about calorimetry from this experiment, because this is not an electrochemical cell which is his forte. They are learning. They can do it again. It will not take long, and it will not take a lot of effort to improve the calorimeter and try again. When you do research, you do things over and over and OVER again. It is like programming, or cooking, or -- as Martin used to say -- like riding a beat-up old bicycle. You do it until it is second-nature. You develop a deep feel for the instrument and its quirks. - Jed Harry
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
For what it's worth, Harry, there is a bit of early history that played out in a way similar to what you're describing. Back in 1994, Focardi, Habel and Piantelli published this: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Focardi-AnomalousHeatNi-H-NuovoCimento.pdf After which some folks at CERN published this: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1996/1996Cerron-InvestigationOfAnomalous.pdf YMMV. Jeff On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: ... Instead Celani, Piantelli, Forcardi discovered that when nickel aborbs hygrodgen the thermal charactersitics of nickel change (by making it less reflective)? And Celani has discovered that this change is correlated with a drop in the electrical resistance of the nickle. Is that it? harry
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: Celani was not able to allow long sustanable mode because this requires a higher temperature, which is possible but not for a long period of time in such transparant tube. No, that is not an issue. He wrapped the cell in insulation. This allowed him to lower the input power a great deal while maintaining the activation temperature. But he was not able to lower input to zero. He hoped to do that to eliminate all doubts about the calorimetry. His plan was to trigger the effect with a heater and then gradually back off all heater power. I do not know why this did not work. I did not discuss it with him. I heard that it did not work. If the effect is an artifact, that would be a reason for it not to work. By the way, the Cerron-Zeballos paper is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CerronZebainvestigat.pdf I am well aware of it, and it is one of the reasons I have remained wary of Focardi. I have heard reports that Focardi improved his calorimetry and addressed this. But he has not published any papers describing this improved calorimetry as far as I know, so I cannot judge whether he addressed these problems. Other researchers I know who have visited him have told me is is uncooperative. I have never met him or talked with him. Regarding Ed Storms' analysis, it applies to all isoperibolic calorimeters where you measure the temperature at the cell wall, regardless of what is happening inside the cell. The reaction inside the cell could be liquid, gas, or even nuclear plasma. The problem occurs when there is a lag in heating different cell wall components, and when the cell wall heating is not uniform. In an electrolysis cell, Melvin Miles recommends measuring the temperature wall rather than in the fluid. This eliminates all doubts about mixing the fluid. As I said, he uses a copper cylinder around the cell to ensure a uniform temperature. In other words, from the inside you have layers: cathode, anode, electrolyte, cell wall, copper wall, temperature sensor, crumpled up aluminum foil, second wall, ambient room air. His calibrations show that temperature sensors located in different places around the copper stay within a very small range of one-another. Changes in ambient air temperature and currents of air have little effect on the temperature sensors. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
I wrote: Regarding Ed Storms' analysis, it applies to all isoperibolic calorimeters where you measure the temperature at the cell wall . . . Plus, as he says, where you measure the temperature of unmixed fluid inside the cell. Many people claimed the FP made this mistake, but they quickly proved they did not. They showed a video of red dye rapidly mixing within a cell. I don't recommend adding red dye to a cold fusion cell. (joke) - Jed
