Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and do not know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus on an area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know that the filament radiates the most photons, even if that reading is diminished in intensity from a clear bulb … this technique can still result in a 3:1 over-estimate of the net emissivity of the bulb, since there is a strong contribution from a hot filament. This can be demonstrated rather easily to be factual. This is a helpful analogy. I was wondering why the emissivity of alumina was an issue. I take it this sort of issue is resolved by coating the thing device being measured in a black refractory coating. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
From: Eric Walker This is a helpful analogy. I was wondering why the emissivity of alumina was an issue. I take it this sort of issue is resolved by coating the thing device being measured in a black refractory coating. Exactamundo. Any undergrad engineering student could see that the alumina needs to be coated with a black refractory coating. That these guys did not see this --- hmm, that does not inspire confidence.
RE: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
From: Blaze Spinnaker Michael Nelson, Alternate Discipline Leader for SLS Propulsion at NASA’s Propulsion Research and Development Laboratory, notes, “I was impressed with the work that was done to insure the measurements claiming a 3.2 to 3.6 COP were accurate. Aside from the fact that this could not have been produced from any known chemical reaction, the most significant finding to me is the evidence of isotopic shifts in lithium and nickel. Understanding this could possibly be the beginning of a whole new era in both material transmutations and energy for the planet and for space exploration. This is an exciting time to live in and this is an exciting technology to witness come about.” http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/10/new-energy-foundation-issues-press-rele ase-on-e-cat-endorsement-from-nasas-michael-nelson/ I agree - on the isotopic shifts – very revealing - but were they endothermic? There is no joy in Mudville for this fan. This is because it is now apparent that there is no real proof of energy gain in the Levi report. There is slight evidence, but no proof. Most of that evidence comes from transmutation, but as we know, transmutation can be endothermic. This paper is fatally flawed, and it goes back to the lead author Levi. Why on earth was he retained? Is he a personal friend of Rossi? The Achilles heel of this paper, and the reason Levi should have been replaced by a more competent researcher is the so-called calorimetry. Not just stupid but bone-headed, given the translucence of alumina. It’s not as bad as using a quartz tube, but almost. A skeptic named Goat Guy (who is 100% correct on this issue): “there is the notion of treating alumina as an opaque radiator of known emissivity (dependent on temperature). I hate to be the guy calling out the Emperor's lack of clothing, but thin walls of alumina, especially sintered alumina, are well known optically transmissive (translucent) barriers. This means, that the actual infrared light output of the Inconel heating wires (which obviously glow, as in their pictures), will make it through the alumina.” In short, the IR being picked up by the camera and then being raised to 4th power by the calculations was a bogus reading, which was essentially the glow of the resistance wires. What about the control, you ask? … then there is the “control” test – which is the emission of the “dummy reactor”, which was done at a few hundred input watts, which is nowhere near the output level of the purported energy generating regime. Why? Of course Levi must have realized that the glow of the resistance would have been seen through the alumina of the control – just as it was seen later in the 6 rods of the insulator. DOH! Slaps forehead ! From: Robert Lynn … Would be easy enough to do a second control run even now to add some confidence to the calorimetry. The alumina + wire will be off-the-shelf all someone need do is ask Rossi for specs of tube and wire - he should be happy to provide them in the interests of clarity. Eric Walker To be honest, the calorimetry left some things to be desired in my opinion. • The calibration run was operated at a much lower temperature than the live run. • The calculations for radiant heat and convection were byzantine. I don't know how anyone could have any confidence in them without some kind of additional check (such as the one they actually did, against the calibration run). Measuring the heat would have been more reliable by running a control at the same temperature as the live run, with heat exchanger and a working fluid, calibrating the power measured against the power delivered to the control and then using the same setup to measure the net power during the live run. The fancy calculations did not add anything and were a distraction. That said, I'm still basically happy with the calorimetry, because I'm not a physicist and at minimum it provides a good back-of-the-envelope number, and it probably a much better number than that. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
On 10/10/2014 09:49 AM, Jones Beene wrote: There is no joy in Mudville for this fan. This is because it is now apparent that there is no real proof of energy gain in the Levi report. There is slight evidence, but no proof. Most of that evidence comes from transmutation, but as we know, transmutation can be endothermic. Any type of transmutation is totally astonishing, and will change the world as we know it, if people follow up on it and verify it. Craig
RE: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
-Original Message- From: Craig Haynie Any type of transmutation is totally astonishing, and will change the world as we know it, if people follow up on it and verify it. Well - you are correct on that, assuming this is verified - but it goes without saying that we were expecting to see exotherm as well.
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In short, the IR being picked up by the camera and then being raised to 4th power by the calculations was a bogus reading, which was essentially the glow of the resistance wires. Then why did it agree with the thermocouple, and why did it register similar high temperatures in places that were not incandescent? … then there is the “control” test – which is the emission of the “dummy reactor”, which was done at a few hundred input watts, which is nowhere near the output level of the purported energy generating regime. The calibration was done at 486 W and and then the cell was run at 790 W for two days. That seems reasonably close to me. The temperature should have been about the same. I cannot imagine any mechanism that would make it go so much higher, other than anomalous excess heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
I wrote: . . . why did it register similar high temperatures in places that were not incandescent? I refer to Fig. 7. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
From: Jed The calibration was done at 486 W and and then the cell was run at 790 W for two days. That seems reasonably close to me. The temperature should have been about the same. I cannot imagine any mechanism that would make it go so much higher, other than anomalous excess heat. Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law look at the graph on this page !! small change in temperature (based on emissivity) are increased exponentially. Now we know that those changes could have been influenced by the photon output of the resistance wires. The is no evidence of gain in the way this was done and Levi should have known that from before ! Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann law) The temperature was also measured with a thermocouple, as noted. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
I wrote: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann law) The temperature was also measured with a thermocouple, as noted. Ah, but your point is that even if the the temperature is measured correctly, may not reflect the power correctly. That would be a rewrite of the textbooks. In any case, a temperature calibration curve goes down, not up, at higher power levels. At 486 W the temperature was 437°C. At 786 W it went up to 1240°C. No matter how you look at it, it should have been reasonably proportional, and no higher than ~750°C. Unless they were pouring ice water on the thing during calibration, or a blast from a fan, there is no way it could go so much higher with only 1.6 times more power. (Those numbers are Tables 3, 6 and 7.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
Jed was talking in watts, W ~ T^4, T is the fourth root of W so it is logarithmic not exponential in your jargon. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Jed The calibration was done at 486 W and and then the cell was run at 790 W for two days. That seems reasonably close to me. The temperature should have been about the same. I cannot imagine any mechanism that would make it go so much higher, other than anomalous excess heat. Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law look at the graph on this page !! small change in temperature (based on emissivity) are increased exponentially. Now we know that those changes could have been influenced by the photon output of the resistance wires. The is no evidence of gain in the way this was done and Levi should have known that from before ! Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
The Isotopic shift is interesting, but that's actually what I'm least impressed with from what I've read so far. It certainly hints at a nuclear reaction, but it's a bizarre finding. The excess heat is pretty obvious/irrefutable, but these isotopic measurements are very far from a sure-thing. If you're only taking a small % of a rather large sample of ash, and only allowed to do it once (or twice?), and there are questions about whether the measuring devices could properly distinguish certain isotopes from one another, and we don't know the extent of contamination, I don't see how you can declare anything with much confidence. So, I'm sold on heat, but still not sold on Lithium as the fuel quite yet without more replication/analysis. If I had to guess, I'd say IH Rossi told them they could only take a small sample to create just this kind of confusion. Why would we think they'd be ready to unveil their trade secrets already? Seems like a little bit of an obfuscation tactic to me. Just IMO. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Jed was talking in watts, W ~ T^4, T is the fourth root of W so it is logarithmic not exponential in your jargon. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Jed The calibration was done at 486 W and and then the cell was run at 790 W for two days. That seems reasonably close to me. The temperature should have been about the same. I cannot imagine any mechanism that would make it go so much higher, other than anomalous excess heat. Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law look at the graph on this page !! small change in temperature (based on emissivity) are increased exponentially. Now we know that those changes could have been influenced by the photon output of the resistance wires. The is no evidence of gain in the way this was done and Levi should have known that from before ! Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
Transmutation is a huge part of lenr. Spawar has published patents all over it. I'm sure it's why the Nasa scientist is excited about it, because he's seen it before and know it's likely true to a point. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: The Isotopic shift is interesting, but that's actually what I'm least impressed with from what I've read so far. It certainly hints at a nuclear reaction, but it's a bizarre finding. The excess heat is pretty obvious/irrefutable, but these isotopic measurements are very far from a sure-thing. If you're only taking a small % of a rather large sample of ash, and only allowed to do it once (or twice?), and there are questions about whether the measuring devices could properly distinguish certain isotopes from one another, and we don't know the extent of contamination, I don't see how you can declare anything with much confidence. So, I'm sold on heat, but still not sold on Lithium as the fuel quite yet without more replication/analysis. If I had to guess, I'd say IH Rossi told them they could only take a small sample to create just this kind of confusion. Why would we think they'd be ready to unveil their trade secrets already? Seems like a little bit of an obfuscation tactic to me. Just IMO. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Jed was talking in watts, W ~ T^4, T is the fourth root of W so it is logarithmic not exponential in your jargon. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Jed The calibration was done at 486 W and and then the cell was run at 790 W for two days. That seems reasonably close to me. The temperature should have been about the same. I cannot imagine any mechanism that would make it go so much higher, other than anomalous excess heat. Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law look at the graph on this page !! small change in temperature (based on emissivity) are increased exponentially. Now we know that those changes could have been influenced by the photon output of the resistance wires. The is no evidence of gain in the way this was done and Levi should have known that from before ! Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
*Transmutation is a huge part of lenr.* It's a part of lenr for sure. I don't know if I'd say huge because we've never, ever, measured transmutation products that are commensurate with excess heat. This is Widom-Larsen logic based on wishful thinking and very little empirical evidence. *Spawar has published patents all over it.* They have patents on LENR. OK. And? All of their work focused on detecting nuclear products (neutrons, alphas, energetic particles) using CR-39 detectors. SPAWAR never concludes transmutation as a mechanism. Their work was not focused on pinning down transmutation products as you're suggesting here. *I'm sure it's why the Nasa scientist is excited about it, because he's seen it before and know it's likely true to a point.* It's also possible he's getting overly excited because he's oblivious about the past heat/helium work in PdD that already proved something nuclear was going on in cold fusion twenty years ago. Plenty of people have seen odd transmutations...that in no way means it's the mechanism. This conversation has been hatched out many places prior to this so I don't mean to drudge it up. If it turns out to be some kind of neutron-stripping mechanism, or whatever, so be it, but we need way more analysis before we declare that. This is akin to Rossi declaring copper transmutation years ago and everyone chasing that empirical/theoretical dead-end. I hope people keep that in mind before irrational exuberance sets in over this data. It's only the beginning, not the destination. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Transmutation is a huge part of lenr. Spawar has published patents all over it. I'm sure it's why the Nasa scientist is excited about it, because he's seen it before and know it's likely true to a point. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: The Isotopic shift is interesting, but that's actually what I'm least impressed with from what I've read so far. It certainly hints at a nuclear reaction, but it's a bizarre finding. The excess heat is pretty obvious/irrefutable, but these isotopic measurements are very far from a sure-thing. If you're only taking a small % of a rather large sample of ash, and only allowed to do it once (or twice?), and there are questions about whether the measuring devices could properly distinguish certain isotopes from one another, and we don't know the extent of contamination, I don't see how you can declare anything with much confidence. So, I'm sold on heat, but still not sold on Lithium as the fuel quite yet without more replication/analysis. If I had to guess, I'd say IH Rossi told them they could only take a small sample to create just this kind of confusion. Why would we think they'd be ready to unveil their trade secrets already? Seems like a little bit of an obfuscation tactic to me. Just IMO. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Jed was talking in watts, W ~ T^4, T is the fourth root of W so it is logarithmic not exponential in your jargon. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Jed The calibration was done at 486 W and and then the cell was run at 790 W for two days. That seems reasonably close to me. The temperature should have been about the same. I cannot imagine any mechanism that would make it go so much higher, other than anomalous excess heat. Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law look at the graph on this page !! small change in temperature (based on emissivity) are increased exponentially. Now we know that those changes could have been influenced by the photon output of the resistance wires. The is no evidence of gain in the way this was done and Levi should have known that from before ! Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
http://coldfusionnow.org/transmutation-of-nuclear-waste-lenr-spawar-navy-patent/ On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: *Transmutation is a huge part of lenr.* It's a part of lenr for sure. I don't know if I'd say huge because we've never, ever, measured transmutation products that are commensurate with excess heat. This is Widom-Larsen logic based on wishful thinking and very little empirical evidence. *Spawar has published patents all over it.* They have patents on LENR. OK. And? All of their work focused on detecting nuclear products (neutrons, alphas, energetic particles) using CR-39 detectors. SPAWAR never concludes transmutation as a mechanism. Their work was not focused on pinning down transmutation products as you're suggesting here. *I'm sure it's why the Nasa scientist is excited about it, because he's seen it before and know it's likely true to a point.* It's also possible he's getting overly excited because he's oblivious about the past heat/helium work in PdD that already proved something nuclear was going on in cold fusion twenty years ago. Plenty of people have seen odd transmutations...that in no way means it's the mechanism. This conversation has been hatched out many places prior to this so I don't mean to drudge it up. If it turns out to be some kind of neutron-stripping mechanism, or whatever, so be it, but we need way more analysis before we declare that. This is akin to Rossi declaring copper transmutation years ago and everyone chasing that empirical/theoretical dead-end. I hope people keep that in mind before irrational exuberance sets in over this data. It's only the beginning, not the destination. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Transmutation is a huge part of lenr. Spawar has published patents all over it. I'm sure it's why the Nasa scientist is excited about it, because he's seen it before and know it's likely true to a point. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: The Isotopic shift is interesting, but that's actually what I'm least impressed with from what I've read so far. It certainly hints at a nuclear reaction, but it's a bizarre finding. The excess heat is pretty obvious/irrefutable, but these isotopic measurements are very far from a sure-thing. If you're only taking a small % of a rather large sample of ash, and only allowed to do it once (or twice?), and there are questions about whether the measuring devices could properly distinguish certain isotopes from one another, and we don't know the extent of contamination, I don't see how you can declare anything with much confidence. So, I'm sold on heat, but still not sold on Lithium as the fuel quite yet without more replication/analysis. If I had to guess, I'd say IH Rossi told them they could only take a small sample to create just this kind of confusion. Why would we think they'd be ready to unveil their trade secrets already? Seems like a little bit of an obfuscation tactic to me. Just IMO. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Jed was talking in watts, W ~ T^4, T is the fourth root of W so it is logarithmic not exponential in your jargon. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Jed The calibration was done at 486 W and and then the cell was run at 790 W for two days. That seems reasonably close to me. The temperature should have been about the same. I cannot imagine any mechanism that would make it go so much higher, other than anomalous excess heat. Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law look at the graph on this page !! small change in temperature (based on emissivity) are increased exponentially. Now we know that those changes could have been influenced by the photon output of the resistance wires. The is no evidence of gain in the way this was done and Levi should have known that from before ! Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50d=PALLRefSrch=yesQuery=PN/8419919 BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION The embodiments of the invention relate generally to the field of electrochemistry. Generated particles may be captured by other nuclei to create new elements, to remediate nuclear waste, to treat cancerous tumors, or to create strategic materials. Previous efforts to create a reproducible method and corresponding system to generate particles during electrolysis of palladium in heavy water have been unsuccessful. Therefore, a need currently exists for a reproducible method and corresponding system that can generate particles. Sounds like transmutation to me... On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://coldfusionnow.org/transmutation-of-nuclear-waste-lenr-spawar-navy-patent/ On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: *Transmutation is a huge part of lenr.* It's a part of lenr for sure. I don't know if I'd say huge because we've never, ever, measured transmutation products that are commensurate with excess heat. This is Widom-Larsen logic based on wishful thinking and very little empirical evidence. *Spawar has published patents all over it.* They have patents on LENR. OK. And? All of their work focused on detecting nuclear products (neutrons, alphas, energetic particles) using CR-39 detectors. SPAWAR never concludes transmutation as a mechanism. Their work was not focused on pinning down transmutation products as you're suggesting here. *I'm sure it's why the Nasa scientist is excited about it, because he's seen it before and know it's likely true to a point.* It's also possible he's getting overly excited because he's oblivious about the past heat/helium work in PdD that already proved something nuclear was going on in cold fusion twenty years ago. Plenty of people have seen odd transmutations...that in no way means it's the mechanism. This conversation has been hatched out many places prior to this so I don't mean to drudge it up. If it turns out to be some kind of neutron-stripping mechanism, or whatever, so be it, but we need way more analysis before we declare that. This is akin to Rossi declaring copper transmutation years ago and everyone chasing that empirical/theoretical dead-end. I hope people keep that in mind before irrational exuberance sets in over this data. It's only the beginning, not the destination. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Transmutation is a huge part of lenr. Spawar has published patents all over it. I'm sure it's why the Nasa scientist is excited about it, because he's seen it before and know it's likely true to a point. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: The Isotopic shift is interesting, but that's actually what I'm least impressed with from what I've read so far. It certainly hints at a nuclear reaction, but it's a bizarre finding. The excess heat is pretty obvious/irrefutable, but these isotopic measurements are very far from a sure-thing. If you're only taking a small % of a rather large sample of ash, and only allowed to do it once (or twice?), and there are questions about whether the measuring devices could properly distinguish certain isotopes from one another, and we don't know the extent of contamination, I don't see how you can declare anything with much confidence. So, I'm sold on heat, but still not sold on Lithium as the fuel quite yet without more replication/analysis. If I had to guess, I'd say IH Rossi told them they could only take a small sample to create just this kind of confusion. Why would we think they'd be ready to unveil their trade secrets already? Seems like a little bit of an obfuscation tactic to me. Just IMO. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Jed was talking in watts, W ~ T^4, T is the fourth root of W so it is logarithmic not exponential in your jargon. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Jed The calibration was done at 486 W and and then the cell was run at 790 W for two days. That seems reasonably close to me. The temperature should have been about the same. I cannot imagine any mechanism that would make it go so much higher, other than anomalous excess heat. Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law look at the graph on this page !! small change in temperature (based on emissivity) are increased exponentially. Now we know
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
Thanks for the link, but again, I'm not really arguing over the patent, that's beside the point. I'm just saying where their *most extensive* work has focused over the years. The patent doesn't really suggest anything about a possible LENR mechanism, just that it's part of the cold fusion phenomenon that could be harnessed. David Nagel is not quite as optimistic as they are that industrial scale transmutation is possible, as you might have known from his recent ICCF talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83DLfW2epzc On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://coldfusionnow.org/transmutation-of-nuclear-waste-lenr-spawar-navy-patent/ On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: *Transmutation is a huge part of lenr.* It's a part of lenr for sure. I don't know if I'd say huge because we've never, ever, measured transmutation products that are commensurate with excess heat. This is Widom-Larsen logic based on wishful thinking and very little empirical evidence. *Spawar has published patents all over it.* They have patents on LENR. OK. And? All of their work focused on detecting nuclear products (neutrons, alphas, energetic particles) using CR-39 detectors. SPAWAR never concludes transmutation as a mechanism. Their work was not focused on pinning down transmutation products as you're suggesting here. *I'm sure it's why the Nasa scientist is excited about it, because he's seen it before and know it's likely true to a point.* It's also possible he's getting overly excited because he's oblivious about the past heat/helium work in PdD that already proved something nuclear was going on in cold fusion twenty years ago. Plenty of people have seen odd transmutations...that in no way means it's the mechanism. This conversation has been hatched out many places prior to this so I don't mean to drudge it up. If it turns out to be some kind of neutron-stripping mechanism, or whatever, so be it, but we need way more analysis before we declare that. This is akin to Rossi declaring copper transmutation years ago and everyone chasing that empirical/theoretical dead-end. I hope people keep that in mind before irrational exuberance sets in over this data. It's only the beginning, not the destination. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Transmutation is a huge part of lenr. Spawar has published patents all over it. I'm sure it's why the Nasa scientist is excited about it, because he's seen it before and know it's likely true to a point. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: The Isotopic shift is interesting, but that's actually what I'm least impressed with from what I've read so far. It certainly hints at a nuclear reaction, but it's a bizarre finding. The excess heat is pretty obvious/irrefutable, but these isotopic measurements are very far from a sure-thing. If you're only taking a small % of a rather large sample of ash, and only allowed to do it once (or twice?), and there are questions about whether the measuring devices could properly distinguish certain isotopes from one another, and we don't know the extent of contamination, I don't see how you can declare anything with much confidence. So, I'm sold on heat, but still not sold on Lithium as the fuel quite yet without more replication/analysis. If I had to guess, I'd say IH Rossi told them they could only take a small sample to create just this kind of confusion. Why would we think they'd be ready to unveil their trade secrets already? Seems like a little bit of an obfuscation tactic to me. Just IMO. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Jed was talking in watts, W ~ T^4, T is the fourth root of W so it is logarithmic not exponential in your jargon. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Jed The calibration was done at 486 W and and then the cell was run at 790 W for two days. That seems reasonably close to me. The temperature should have been about the same. I cannot imagine any mechanism that would make it go so much higher, other than anomalous excess heat. Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law look at the graph on this page !! small change in temperature (based on emissivity) are increased exponentially. Now we know that those changes could have been influenced by the photon output of the resistance wires. The is no evidence of gain in the way this was done and Levi should have known that from before ! Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
I generally agree with your sentiment, and about the obfuscation. Though I'm feeling more optimistic now that Darden has personally put his credibility on the line. Clearly he is excited. And given the 1mw install they've been doing he must have a pretty good idea of what's going on.I don't think obfuscation is something he'd be interested in, and IH does own it now, so why would Rossi bother? I think there are good reasons to be bullish now, but I agree some skepticism is always warranted. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the link, but again, I'm not really arguing over the patent, that's beside the point. I'm just saying where their *most extensive* work has focused over the years. The patent doesn't really suggest anything about a possible LENR mechanism, just that it's part of the cold fusion phenomenon that could be harnessed. David Nagel is not quite as optimistic as they are that industrial scale transmutation is possible, as you might have known from his recent ICCF talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83DLfW2epzc On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://coldfusionnow.org/transmutation-of-nuclear-waste-lenr-spawar-navy-patent/ On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: *Transmutation is a huge part of lenr.* It's a part of lenr for sure. I don't know if I'd say huge because we've never, ever, measured transmutation products that are commensurate with excess heat. This is Widom-Larsen logic based on wishful thinking and very little empirical evidence. *Spawar has published patents all over it.* They have patents on LENR. OK. And? All of their work focused on detecting nuclear products (neutrons, alphas, energetic particles) using CR-39 detectors. SPAWAR never concludes transmutation as a mechanism. Their work was not focused on pinning down transmutation products as you're suggesting here. *I'm sure it's why the Nasa scientist is excited about it, because he's seen it before and know it's likely true to a point.* It's also possible he's getting overly excited because he's oblivious about the past heat/helium work in PdD that already proved something nuclear was going on in cold fusion twenty years ago. Plenty of people have seen odd transmutations...that in no way means it's the mechanism. This conversation has been hatched out many places prior to this so I don't mean to drudge it up. If it turns out to be some kind of neutron-stripping mechanism, or whatever, so be it, but we need way more analysis before we declare that. This is akin to Rossi declaring copper transmutation years ago and everyone chasing that empirical/theoretical dead-end. I hope people keep that in mind before irrational exuberance sets in over this data. It's only the beginning, not the destination. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Transmutation is a huge part of lenr. Spawar has published patents all over it. I'm sure it's why the Nasa scientist is excited about it, because he's seen it before and know it's likely true to a point. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: The Isotopic shift is interesting, but that's actually what I'm least impressed with from what I've read so far. It certainly hints at a nuclear reaction, but it's a bizarre finding. The excess heat is pretty obvious/irrefutable, but these isotopic measurements are very far from a sure-thing. If you're only taking a small % of a rather large sample of ash, and only allowed to do it once (or twice?), and there are questions about whether the measuring devices could properly distinguish certain isotopes from one another, and we don't know the extent of contamination, I don't see how you can declare anything with much confidence. So, I'm sold on heat, but still not sold on Lithium as the fuel quite yet without more replication/analysis. If I had to guess, I'd say IH Rossi told them they could only take a small sample to create just this kind of confusion. Why would we think they'd be ready to unveil their trade secrets already? Seems like a little bit of an obfuscation tactic to me. Just IMO. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Jed was talking in watts, W ~ T^4, T is the fourth root of W so it is logarithmic not exponential in your jargon. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Jed The calibration was done at 486 W and and then the cell was run at 790 W for two days. That seems reasonably close to me. The temperature should have been about the same. I cannot imagine any mechanism that would make it go so much higher, other than anomalous excess heat. Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
* generally agree with your sentiment, and about the obfuscation. Though I'm feeling more optimistic now that Darden has personally put his credibility on the line. Clearly he is excited. And given the 1mw install they've been doing he must have a pretty good idea of what's going on.I don't think obfuscation is something he'd be interested in, and IH does own it now, so why would Rossi bother?* It's nice to have agreement now and then :) Maybe I misunderstood, but wasn't it a demand of IH, not Rossi, that only a partial amount of powder be removed? That's why I suggest obfuscation, if what people have been criticizing about the integrity of such a small sample is sound (which I believe it is). On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I generally agree with your sentiment, and about the obfuscation. Though I'm feeling more optimistic now that Darden has personally put his credibility on the line. Clearly he is excited. And given the 1mw install they've been doing he must have a pretty good idea of what's going on.I don't think obfuscation is something he'd be interested in, and IH does own it now, so why would Rossi bother? I think there are good reasons to be bullish now, but I agree some skepticism is always warranted. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the link, but again, I'm not really arguing over the patent, that's beside the point. I'm just saying where their *most extensive* work has focused over the years. The patent doesn't really suggest anything about a possible LENR mechanism, just that it's part of the cold fusion phenomenon that could be harnessed. David Nagel is not quite as optimistic as they are that industrial scale transmutation is possible, as you might have known from his recent ICCF talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83DLfW2epzc On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://coldfusionnow.org/transmutation-of-nuclear-waste-lenr-spawar-navy-patent/ On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: *Transmutation is a huge part of lenr.* It's a part of lenr for sure. I don't know if I'd say huge because we've never, ever, measured transmutation products that are commensurate with excess heat. This is Widom-Larsen logic based on wishful thinking and very little empirical evidence. *Spawar has published patents all over it.* They have patents on LENR. OK. And? All of their work focused on detecting nuclear products (neutrons, alphas, energetic particles) using CR-39 detectors. SPAWAR never concludes transmutation as a mechanism. Their work was not focused on pinning down transmutation products as you're suggesting here. *I'm sure it's why the Nasa scientist is excited about it, because he's seen it before and know it's likely true to a point.* It's also possible he's getting overly excited because he's oblivious about the past heat/helium work in PdD that already proved something nuclear was going on in cold fusion twenty years ago. Plenty of people have seen odd transmutations...that in no way means it's the mechanism. This conversation has been hatched out many places prior to this so I don't mean to drudge it up. If it turns out to be some kind of neutron-stripping mechanism, or whatever, so be it, but we need way more analysis before we declare that. This is akin to Rossi declaring copper transmutation years ago and everyone chasing that empirical/theoretical dead-end. I hope people keep that in mind before irrational exuberance sets in over this data. It's only the beginning, not the destination. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Transmutation is a huge part of lenr. Spawar has published patents all over it. I'm sure it's why the Nasa scientist is excited about it, because he's seen it before and know it's likely true to a point. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: The Isotopic shift is interesting, but that's actually what I'm least impressed with from what I've read so far. It certainly hints at a nuclear reaction, but it's a bizarre finding. The excess heat is pretty obvious/irrefutable, but these isotopic measurements are very far from a sure-thing. If you're only taking a small % of a rather large sample of ash, and only allowed to do it once (or twice?), and there are questions about whether the measuring devices could properly distinguish certain isotopes from one another, and we don't know the extent of contamination, I don't see how you can declare anything with much confidence. So, I'm sold on heat, but still not sold on Lithium as the fuel quite yet without more replication/analysis. If I had to guess, I'd say IH Rossi told them they could only take a small sample to create just this kind of confusion. Why would we think they'd
RE: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
Here is a reduction ad absurdum example of why this experiment was unbelievably poorly designed. NOTE: The experiment could still be gainful, but the Levi’s results do not prove anything, as presented. The thermocouple does not help – it is admitted by Levi that it was accurate only on the two caps, which were much cooler. Let’s say I claim to have a hundred watt OU lightbulb that I want to sell to you for $1 million. If it were a glass bulb, and clear, and I use the IR camera to measure the filament temperature, and then used that temperature to compute the emissivity of the entire surface area of the bulb, say 100 cm^2, then you would cry foul – since the obviously only the surface area of the filament is responsible. That filament area could be 1 cm^2 and in effect, I have computed the power of the bulb with a 25:1 overestimate- based on an incorrect assumption, but based on a correct reading and a correct formula. Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and do not know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus on an area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know that the filament radiates the most photons, even if that reading is diminished in intensity from a clear bulb … this technique can still result in a 3:1 over-estimate of the net emissivity of the bulb, since there is a strong contribution from a hot filament. This can be demonstrated rather easily to be factual. That is the problem with this paper. Levi seems to be telling us only this: that if one applies 800 watts to a Inconel wire, it will reach 1300 degrees. But we already knew that. We cannot extrapolate the emissivity of the resistor wire to the entire surface of the reactor. As for a thermocouple, placement is everything. I saw NO DATA on calibration of the thermocouple, only that someone who already screwed up the experiment royally thinks that it verifies what could be a grossly incorrect calibration. In fact this is admitted “We also found that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe placed on the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct temperature measurement with the required precision impossible.” So they admit the thermocouple reading was not done with any precision on the exterior of the tube – only on the caps which are much cooler and consequently the thermocouple verifies nothing! $64 question: Was Rossi present at the time the reactor was opened? If so, and this has been reported on E-Cat World, then that means the sample which Bianchini tested was not independently obtained – and could have been tampered with by Rossi himself – who is known to have purchased several grams of Ni-62. From: Jed Rothwell JB: Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann law) The temperature was also measured with a thermocouple, as noted. Ah, but your point is that even if the the temperature is measured correctly, may not reflect the power correctly. That would be a rewrite of the textbooks. In any case, a temperature calibration curve goes down, not up, at higher power levels. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being present when it was open are unfounded. I think that was a rather stupid move/agreement between the parties. Creates all kind of innuendo which they could/should have avoided. With that said I'm not so sure it really presented him with much chance to swap the sample, as Mats Lewan wrote: I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of the team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a closed room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was manipulated, all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have needed to swap the reactor for another identical before opening. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is a reduction ad absurdum example of why this experiment was unbelievably poorly designed. NOTE: The experiment could still be gainful, but the Levi’s results do not prove anything, as presented. The thermocouple does not help – it is admitted by Levi that it was accurate only on the two caps, which were much cooler. Let’s say I claim to have a hundred watt OU lightbulb that I want to sell to you for $1 million. If it were a glass bulb, and clear, and I use the IR camera to measure the filament temperature, and then used that temperature to compute the emissivity of the entire surface area of the bulb, say 100 cm^2, then you would cry foul – since the obviously only the surface area of the filament is responsible. That filament area could be 1 cm^2 and in effect, I have computed the power of the bulb with a 25:1 overestimate- based on an incorrect assumption, but based on a correct reading and a correct formula. Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and do not know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus on an area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know that the filament radiates the most photons, even if that reading is diminished in intensity from a clear bulb … this technique can still result in a 3:1 over-estimate of the net emissivity of the bulb, since there is a strong contribution from a hot filament. This can be demonstrated rather easily to be factual. That is the problem with this paper. Levi seems to be telling us only this: that if one applies 800 watts to a Inconel wire, it will reach 1300 degrees. But we already knew that. We cannot extrapolate the emissivity of the resistor wire to the entire surface of the reactor. As for a thermocouple, placement is everything. I saw NO DATA on calibration of the thermocouple, only that someone who already screwed up the experiment royally thinks that it verifies what could be a grossly incorrect calibration. In fact this is admitted “We also found that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe placed on the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct temperature measurement with the required precision impossible.” So they admit the thermocouple reading was not done with any precision on the exterior of the tube – only on the caps which are much cooler and consequently the thermocouple verifies nothing! $64 question: Was Rossi present at the time the reactor was opened? If so, and this has been reported on E-Cat World, then that means the sample which Bianchini tested was not independently obtained – and could have been tampered with by Rossi himself – who is known to have purchased several grams of Ni-62. From: Jed Rothwell JB: Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann law) The temperature was also measured with a thermocouple, as noted. Ah, but your point is that even if the the temperature is measured correctly, may not reflect the power correctly. That would be a rewrite of the textbooks. In any case, a temperature calibration curve goes down, not up, at higher power levels.
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being present when it was open are unfounded. I think that was a rather stupid move/agreement between the parties. Creates all kind of innuendo which they could/should have avoided. As far as I know, the people doing these tests do not care about innuendos or the opinions of Jones Beene, or anyone else. I believe they have good reasons for imposing restrictions (as Lewan put it). These reasons override any concerns about public relations or public opinion. I am glad they published this report. They were under no obligation to do so. We are beggars and beggars cannot be choosers. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
*As far as I know, the people doing these tests do not care about innuendos or the opinions of Jones Beene, or anyone else. I believe they have good reasons for imposing restrictions (as Lewan put it). These reasons override any concerns about public relations or public opinion.* *I am glad they published this report. They were under no obligation to do so. We are beggars and beggars cannot be choosers.* I get you. I agree. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being present when it was open are unfounded. I think that was a rather stupid move/agreement between the parties. Creates all kind of innuendo which they could/should have avoided. As far as I know, the people doing these tests do not care about innuendos or the opinions of Jones Beene, or anyone else. I believe they have good reasons for imposing restrictions (as Lewan put it). These reasons override any concerns about public relations or public opinion. I am glad they published this report. They were under no obligation to do so. We are beggars and beggars cannot be choosers. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
Does anyone know if there will be a press release or QA where the experimenters can answer questions? It would be extreme negligence to allow Levi or Rossi to open the reactor or handle the ash. Two things that lends credence to Jones' fear-- Rossi's constant may be positive or may be negative mantra, and Rossi's statements that getting actual work accomplished is difficult. If it were a clear COP of 3, it should be pretty easy to heat a tub of water or do some kind of obvious work. - Brad On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being present when it was open are unfounded. I think that was a rather stupid move/agreement between the parties. Creates all kind of innuendo which they could/should have avoided. With that said I'm not so sure it really presented him with much chance to swap the sample, as Mats Lewan wrote: I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of the team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a closed room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was manipulated, all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have needed to swap the reactor for another identical before opening. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is a reduction ad absurdum example of why this experiment was unbelievably poorly designed. NOTE: The experiment could still be gainful, but the Levi’s results do not prove anything, as presented. The thermocouple does not help – it is admitted by Levi that it was accurate only on the two caps, which were much cooler. Let’s say I claim to have a hundred watt OU lightbulb that I want to sell to you for $1 million. If it were a glass bulb, and clear, and I use the IR camera to measure the filament temperature, and then used that temperature to compute the emissivity of the entire surface area of the bulb, say 100 cm^2, then you would cry foul – since the obviously only the surface area of the filament is responsible. That filament area could be 1 cm^2 and in effect, I have computed the power of the bulb with a 25:1 overestimate- based on an incorrect assumption, but based on a correct reading and a correct formula. Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and do not know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus on an area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know that the filament radiates the most photons, even if that reading is diminished in intensity from a clear bulb … this technique can still result in a 3:1 over-estimate of the net emissivity of the bulb, since there is a strong contribution from a hot filament. This can be demonstrated rather easily to be factual. That is the problem with this paper. Levi seems to be telling us only this: that if one applies 800 watts to a Inconel wire, it will reach 1300 degrees. But we already knew that. We cannot extrapolate the emissivity of the resistor wire to the entire surface of the reactor. As for a thermocouple, placement is everything. I saw NO DATA on calibration of the thermocouple, only that someone who already screwed up the experiment royally thinks that it verifies what could be a grossly incorrect calibration. In fact this is admitted “We also found that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe placed on the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct temperature measurement with the required precision impossible.” So they admit the thermocouple reading was not done with any precision on the exterior of the tube – only on the caps which are much cooler and consequently the thermocouple verifies nothing! $64 question: Was Rossi present at the time the reactor was opened? If so, and this has been reported on E-Cat World, then that means the sample which Bianchini tested was not independently obtained – and could have been tampered with by Rossi himself – who is known to have purchased several grams of Ni-62. From: Jed Rothwell JB: Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann law) The temperature was also measured with a thermocouple, as noted. Ah, but your point is that even if the the temperature is measured correctly, may not reflect the power correctly.
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
I think you exagerrate to the point of non sense. even if goatguy make a real point it is just changing the values of the temperature and the power. not the fact that COP1, and even 1 one reactor with less energy in, get more bright than one with more power getting in. maybe COP is not 3.2 but it is 1 the rest is details. 2014-10-10 15:49 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: From: Blaze Spinnaker Michael Nelson, Alternate Discipline Leader for SLS Propulsion at NASA’s Propulsion Research and Development Laboratory, notes, “I was impressed with the work that was done to insure the measurements claiming a 3.2 to 3.6 COP were accurate. Aside from the fact that this could not have been produced from any known chemical reaction, the most significant finding to me is the evidence of isotopic shifts in lithium and nickel. Understanding this could possibly be the beginning of a whole new era in both material transmutations and energy for the planet and for space exploration. This is an exciting time to live in and this is an exciting technology to witness come about.” http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/10/new-energy-foundation-issues-press-rele ase-on-e-cat-endorsement-from-nasas-michael-nelson/ I agree - on the isotopic shifts – very revealing - but were they endothermic? There is no joy in Mudville for this fan. This is because it is now apparent that there is no real proof of energy gain in the Levi report. There is slight evidence, but no proof. Most of that evidence comes from transmutation, but as we know, transmutation can be endothermic. This paper is fatally flawed, and it goes back to the lead author Levi. Why on earth was he retained? Is he a personal friend of Rossi? The Achilles heel of this paper, and the reason Levi should have been replaced by a more competent researcher is the so-called calorimetry. Not just stupid but bone-headed, given the translucence of alumina. It’s not as bad as using a quartz tube, but almost. A skeptic named Goat Guy (who is 100% correct on this issue): “there is the notion of treating alumina as an opaque radiator of known emissivity (dependent on temperature). I hate to be the guy calling out the Emperor's lack of clothing, but thin walls of alumina, especially sintered alumina, are well known optically transmissive (translucent) barriers. This means, that the actual infrared light output of the Inconel heating wires (which obviously glow, as in their pictures), will make it through the alumina.” In short, the IR being picked up by the camera and then being raised to 4th power by the calculations was a bogus reading, which was essentially the glow of the resistance wires. What about the control, you ask? … then there is the “control” test – which is the emission of the “dummy reactor”, which was done at a few hundred input watts, which is nowhere near the output level of the purported energy generating regime. Why? Of course Levi must have realized that the glow of the resistance would have been seen through the alumina of the control – just as it was seen later in the 6 rods of the insulator. DOH! Slaps forehead ! From: Robert Lynn … Would be easy enough to do a second control run even now to add some confidence to the calorimetry. The alumina + wire will be off-the-shelf all someone need do is ask Rossi for specs of tube and wire - he should be happy to provide them in the interests of clarity. Eric Walker To be honest, the calorimetry left some things to be desired in my opinion. • The calibration run was operated at a much lower temperature than the live run. • The calculations for radiant heat and convection were byzantine. I don't know how anyone could have any confidence in them without some kind of additional check (such as the one they actually did, against the calibration run). Measuring the heat would have been more reliable by running a control at the same temperature as the live run, with heat exchanger and a working fluid, calibrating the power measured against the power delivered to the control and then using the same setup to measure the net power during the live run. The fancy calculations did not add anything and were a distraction. That said, I'm still basically happy with the calorimetry, because I'm not a physicist and at minimum it provides a good back-of-the-envelope number, and it probably a much better number than that.
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
Brad, I think part of the problem was control. When you use the hot cat to actually heat something I suspect it messes with the ability to control the reaction. The best they can do is let it radiate, which is why the thermal cameras. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know if there will be a press release or QA where the experimenters can answer questions? It would be extreme negligence to allow Levi or Rossi to open the reactor or handle the ash. Two things that lends credence to Jones' fear-- Rossi's constant may be positive or may be negative mantra, and Rossi's statements that getting actual work accomplished is difficult. If it were a clear COP of 3, it should be pretty easy to heat a tub of water or do some kind of obvious work. - Brad On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being present when it was open are unfounded. I think that was a rather stupid move/agreement between the parties. Creates all kind of innuendo which they could/should have avoided. With that said I'm not so sure it really presented him with much chance to swap the sample, as Mats Lewan wrote: I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of the team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a closed room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was manipulated, all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have needed to swap the reactor for another identical before opening. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is a reduction ad absurdum example of why this experiment was unbelievably poorly designed. NOTE: The experiment could still be gainful, but the Levi’s results do not prove anything, as presented. The thermocouple does not help – it is admitted by Levi that it was accurate only on the two caps, which were much cooler. Let’s say I claim to have a hundred watt OU lightbulb that I want to sell to you for $1 million. If it were a glass bulb, and clear, and I use the IR camera to measure the filament temperature, and then used that temperature to compute the emissivity of the entire surface area of the bulb, say 100 cm^2, then you would cry foul – since the obviously only the surface area of the filament is responsible. That filament area could be 1 cm^2 and in effect, I have computed the power of the bulb with a 25:1 overestimate- based on an incorrect assumption, but based on a correct reading and a correct formula. Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and do not know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus on an area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know that the filament radiates the most photons, even if that reading is diminished in intensity from a clear bulb … this technique can still result in a 3:1 over-estimate of the net emissivity of the bulb, since there is a strong contribution from a hot filament. This can be demonstrated rather easily to be factual. That is the problem with this paper. Levi seems to be telling us only this: that if one applies 800 watts to a Inconel wire, it will reach 1300 degrees. But we already knew that. We cannot extrapolate the emissivity of the resistor wire to the entire surface of the reactor. As for a thermocouple, placement is everything. I saw NO DATA on calibration of the thermocouple, only that someone who already screwed up the experiment royally thinks that it verifies what could be a grossly incorrect calibration. In fact this is admitted “We also found that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe placed on the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct temperature measurement with the required precision impossible.” So they admit the thermocouple reading was not done with any precision on the exterior of the tube – only on the caps which are much cooler and consequently the thermocouple verifies nothing! $64 question: Was Rossi present at the time the reactor was opened? If so, and this has been reported on E-Cat World, then that means the sample which Bianchini tested was not independently obtained – and could have been tampered with by Rossi himself – who is known to have purchased several grams of Ni-62. From: Jed Rothwell JB: Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same”
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
The continued use of these two remote IR temperature sensors leads me to suspect a large output of IR radiation witch would have interfered with directly wired instrumentation On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know if there will be a press release or QA where the experimenters can answer questions? It would be extreme negligence to allow Levi or Rossi to open the reactor or handle the ash. Two things that lends credence to Jones' fear-- Rossi's constant may be positive or may be negative mantra, and Rossi's statements that getting actual work accomplished is difficult. If it were a clear COP of 3, it should be pretty easy to heat a tub of water or do some kind of obvious work. - Brad On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being present when it was open are unfounded. I think that was a rather stupid move/agreement between the parties. Creates all kind of innuendo which they could/should have avoided. With that said I'm not so sure it really presented him with much chance to swap the sample, as Mats Lewan wrote: I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of the team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a closed room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was manipulated, all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have needed to swap the reactor for another identical before opening. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is a reduction ad absurdum example of why this experiment was unbelievably poorly designed. NOTE: The experiment could still be gainful, but the Levi’s results do not prove anything, as presented. The thermocouple does not help – it is admitted by Levi that it was accurate only on the two caps, which were much cooler. Let’s say I claim to have a hundred watt OU lightbulb that I want to sell to you for $1 million. If it were a glass bulb, and clear, and I use the IR camera to measure the filament temperature, and then used that temperature to compute the emissivity of the entire surface area of the bulb, say 100 cm^2, then you would cry foul – since the obviously only the surface area of the filament is responsible. That filament area could be 1 cm^2 and in effect, I have computed the power of the bulb with a 25:1 overestimate- based on an incorrect assumption, but based on a correct reading and a correct formula. Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and do not know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus on an area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know that the filament radiates the most photons, even if that reading is diminished in intensity from a clear bulb … this technique can still result in a 3:1 over-estimate of the net emissivity of the bulb, since there is a strong contribution from a hot filament. This can be demonstrated rather easily to be factual. That is the problem with this paper. Levi seems to be telling us only this: that if one applies 800 watts to a Inconel wire, it will reach 1300 degrees. But we already knew that. We cannot extrapolate the emissivity of the resistor wire to the entire surface of the reactor. As for a thermocouple, placement is everything. I saw NO DATA on calibration of the thermocouple, only that someone who already screwed up the experiment royally thinks that it verifies what could be a grossly incorrect calibration. In fact this is admitted “We also found that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe placed on the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct temperature measurement with the required precision impossible.” So they admit the thermocouple reading was not done with any precision on the exterior of the tube – only on the caps which are much cooler and consequently the thermocouple verifies nothing! $64 question: Was Rossi present at the time the reactor was opened? If so, and this has been reported on E-Cat World, then that means the sample which Bianchini tested was not independently obtained – and could have been tampered with by Rossi himself – who is known to have purchased several grams of Ni-62. From: Jed Rothwell JB: Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
Very perceptive and a great insight into why the test was setup the way that it was. Rossi has not solved his control issues yet. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Brad, I think part of the problem was control. When you use the hot cat to actually heat something I suspect it messes with the ability to control the reaction. The best they can do is let it radiate, which is why the thermal cameras. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know if there will be a press release or QA where the experimenters can answer questions? It would be extreme negligence to allow Levi or Rossi to open the reactor or handle the ash. Two things that lends credence to Jones' fear-- Rossi's constant may be positive or may be negative mantra, and Rossi's statements that getting actual work accomplished is difficult. If it were a clear COP of 3, it should be pretty easy to heat a tub of water or do some kind of obvious work. - Brad On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being present when it was open are unfounded. I think that was a rather stupid move/agreement between the parties. Creates all kind of innuendo which they could/should have avoided. With that said I'm not so sure it really presented him with much chance to swap the sample, as Mats Lewan wrote: I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of the team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a closed room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was manipulated, all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have needed to swap the reactor for another identical before opening. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is a reduction ad absurdum example of why this experiment was unbelievably poorly designed. NOTE: The experiment could still be gainful, but the Levi’s results do not prove anything, as presented. The thermocouple does not help – it is admitted by Levi that it was accurate only on the two caps, which were much cooler. Let’s say I claim to have a hundred watt OU lightbulb that I want to sell to you for $1 million. If it were a glass bulb, and clear, and I use the IR camera to measure the filament temperature, and then used that temperature to compute the emissivity of the entire surface area of the bulb, say 100 cm^2, then you would cry foul – since the obviously only the surface area of the filament is responsible. That filament area could be 1 cm^2 and in effect, I have computed the power of the bulb with a 25:1 overestimate- based on an incorrect assumption, but based on a correct reading and a correct formula. Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and do not know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus on an area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know that the filament radiates the most photons, even if that reading is diminished in intensity from a clear bulb … this technique can still result in a 3:1 over-estimate of the net emissivity of the bulb, since there is a strong contribution from a hot filament. This can be demonstrated rather easily to be factual. That is the problem with this paper. Levi seems to be telling us only this: that if one applies 800 watts to a Inconel wire, it will reach 1300 degrees. But we already knew that. We cannot extrapolate the emissivity of the resistor wire to the entire surface of the reactor. As for a thermocouple, placement is everything. I saw NO DATA on calibration of the thermocouple, only that someone who already screwed up the experiment royally thinks that it verifies what could be a grossly incorrect calibration. In fact this is admitted “We also found that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe placed on the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct temperature measurement with the required precision impossible.” So they admit the thermocouple reading was not done with any precision on the exterior of the tube – only on the caps which are much cooler and consequently the thermocouple verifies nothing! $64 question: Was Rossi present at the time the reactor was opened? If so, and this has been reported on E-Cat World, then that means the sample which Bianchini tested was not independently obtained – and could have been tampered with by Rossi himself –
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know if there will be a press release or QA where the experimenters can answer questions? It would be extreme negligence to allow Levi or Rossi to open the reactor or handle the ash. Extreme negligence toward who, under what law or what set of rules? This is privately funded research. These people are free do whatever they like with anyone present or absent. I believe their agenda is to gain intellectual property and to commercialize the device. As far as I know, they are not trying to convince the scientific establishment or the readers of this forum. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
If there is a real transparancy issue as GoatGuy suggest then the inner must be of much higher temperature then the surface. To get a feeling of this issue I tried to look at the published picture of the cat and see if there was a region of lower temperature at the upper part of the ecat in the heat picture. I could just see a sharp interface. My take is that the time constant in the variation is so low that the inner part and the surface have approximately the same temperature and hence I think that GoatGuy's point is a bit moot. WDYT? On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Very perceptive and a great insight into why the test was setup the way that it was. Rossi has not solved his control issues yet. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Brad, I think part of the problem was control. When you use the hot cat to actually heat something I suspect it messes with the ability to control the reaction. The best they can do is let it radiate, which is why the thermal cameras. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know if there will be a press release or QA where the experimenters can answer questions? It would be extreme negligence to allow Levi or Rossi to open the reactor or handle the ash. Two things that lends credence to Jones' fear-- Rossi's constant may be positive or may be negative mantra, and Rossi's statements that getting actual work accomplished is difficult. If it were a clear COP of 3, it should be pretty easy to heat a tub of water or do some kind of obvious work. - Brad On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being present when it was open are unfounded. I think that was a rather stupid move/agreement between the parties. Creates all kind of innuendo which they could/should have avoided. With that said I'm not so sure it really presented him with much chance to swap the sample, as Mats Lewan wrote: I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of the team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a closed room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was manipulated, all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have needed to swap the reactor for another identical before opening. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is a reduction ad absurdum example of why this experiment was unbelievably poorly designed. NOTE: The experiment could still be gainful, but the Levi’s results do not prove anything, as presented. The thermocouple does not help – it is admitted by Levi that it was accurate only on the two caps, which were much cooler. Let’s say I claim to have a hundred watt OU lightbulb that I want to sell to you for $1 million. If it were a glass bulb, and clear, and I use the IR camera to measure the filament temperature, and then used that temperature to compute the emissivity of the entire surface area of the bulb, say 100 cm^2, then you would cry foul – since the obviously only the surface area of the filament is responsible. That filament area could be 1 cm^2 and in effect, I have computed the power of the bulb with a 25:1 overestimate- based on an incorrect assumption, but based on a correct reading and a correct formula. Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and do not know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus on an area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know that the filament radiates the most photons, even if that reading is diminished in intensity from a clear bulb … this technique can still result in a 3:1 over-estimate of the net emissivity of the bulb, since there is a strong contribution from a hot filament. This can be demonstrated rather easily to be factual. That is the problem with this paper. Levi seems to be telling us only this: that if one applies 800 watts to a Inconel wire, it will reach 1300 degrees. But we already knew that. We cannot extrapolate the emissivity of the resistor wire to the entire surface of the reactor. As for a thermocouple, placement is everything. I saw NO DATA on calibration of the thermocouple, only that someone who already screwed up the experiment royally thinks that it verifies what could be a grossly incorrect calibration. In fact this is admitted “We also found that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I am glad they published this report. They were under no obligation to do so. We are beggars and beggars cannot be choosers. This is another reason why most scientists will ignore this report because they see themselves as a community of equals. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:48 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I am glad they published this report. They were under no obligation to do so. We are beggars and beggars cannot be choosers. This is another reason why most scientists will ignore this report because they see themselves as a community of equals. The community that ignores experimental falsification of their theories is, indeed, a community of equals.
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: This is another reason why most scientists will ignore this report because they see themselves as a community of equals. The community that ignores experimental falsification of their theories is, indeed, a community of equals. Yes! And a confederacy of dunces. When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
what impact does it have about the question whether the blank when powered with more energy, is brighting much less than the one with one gram more of magic powder ? to the point that the things inside the reactor bright more than the resistors ... if the skeptics are really skeptic, they have to address that question. first answer if the powder produce heat more that it receive... for the rest I'm ready to follow expert opinion. moreover there is the calibration by others mean? note that they used black points that confirmed the emissivity of the surface as interpreted by the IR cam. is there also comments on the black dot that are compatible with that theory... it is maybe a key to rule out GG theory 2014-10-10 21:34 GMT+02:00 Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com : If there is a real transparancy issue as GoatGuy suggest then the inner must be of much higher temperature then the surface. To get a feeling of this issue I tried to look at the published picture of the cat and see if there was a region of lower temperature at the upper part of the ecat in the heat picture. I could just see a sharp interface. My take is that the time constant in the variation is so low that the inner part and the surface have approximately the same temperature and hence I think that GoatGuy's point is a bit moot. WDYT? On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Very perceptive and a great insight into why the test was setup the way that it was. Rossi has not solved his control issues yet. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Brad, I think part of the problem was control. When you use the hot cat to actually heat something I suspect it messes with the ability to control the reaction. The best they can do is let it radiate, which is why the thermal cameras. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know if there will be a press release or QA where the experimenters can answer questions? It would be extreme negligence to allow Levi or Rossi to open the reactor or handle the ash. Two things that lends credence to Jones' fear-- Rossi's constant may be positive or may be negative mantra, and Rossi's statements that getting actual work accomplished is difficult. If it were a clear COP of 3, it should be pretty easy to heat a tub of water or do some kind of obvious work. - Brad On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being present when it was open are unfounded. I think that was a rather stupid move/agreement between the parties. Creates all kind of innuendo which they could/should have avoided. With that said I'm not so sure it really presented him with much chance to swap the sample, as Mats Lewan wrote: I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of the team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a closed room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was manipulated, all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have needed to swap the reactor for another identical before opening. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is a reduction ad absurdum example of why this experiment was unbelievably poorly designed. NOTE: The experiment could still be gainful, but the Levi’s results do not prove anything, as presented. The thermocouple does not help – it is admitted by Levi that it was accurate only on the two caps, which were much cooler. Let’s say I claim to have a hundred watt OU lightbulb that I want to sell to you for $1 million. If it were a glass bulb, and clear, and I use the IR camera to measure the filament temperature, and then used that temperature to compute the emissivity of the entire surface area of the bulb, say 100 cm^2, then you would cry foul – since the obviously only the surface area of the filament is responsible. That filament area could be 1 cm^2 and in effect, I have computed the power of the bulb with a 25:1 overestimate- based on an incorrect assumption, but based on a correct reading and a correct formula. Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and do not know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus on an area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know that the filament radiates the most photons, even if that reading is diminished in intensity from a clear bulb … this technique can still result in a
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
It is worth noting that some FP cells got hot enough to boil off the electrolytic solution and then remained hot for a while. Harry On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Very perceptive and a great insight into why the test was setup the way that it was. Rossi has not solved his control issues yet. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Brad, I think part of the problem was control. When you use the hot cat to actually heat something I suspect it messes with the ability to control the reaction. The best they can do is let it radiate, which is why the thermal cameras. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know if there will be a press release or QA where the experimenters can answer questions? It would be extreme negligence to allow Levi or Rossi to open the reactor or handle the ash. Two things that lends credence to Jones' fear-- Rossi's constant may be positive or may be negative mantra, and Rossi's statements that getting actual work accomplished is difficult. If it were a clear COP of 3, it should be pretty easy to heat a tub of water or do some kind of obvious work. - Brad On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being present when it was open are unfounded. I think that was a rather stupid move/agreement between the parties. Creates all kind of innuendo which they could/should have avoided. With that said I'm not so sure it really presented him with much chance to swap the sample, as Mats Lewan wrote: I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of the team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a closed room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was manipulated, all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have needed to swap the reactor for another identical before opening. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is a reduction ad absurdum example of why this experiment was unbelievably poorly designed. NOTE: The experiment could still be gainful, but the Levi’s results do not prove anything, as presented. The thermocouple does not help – it is admitted by Levi that it was accurate only on the two caps, which were much cooler. Let’s say I claim to have a hundred watt OU lightbulb that I want to sell to you for $1 million. If it were a glass bulb, and clear, and I use the IR camera to measure the filament temperature, and then used that temperature to compute the emissivity of the entire surface area of the bulb, say 100 cm^2, then you would cry foul – since the obviously only the surface area of the filament is responsible. That filament area could be 1 cm^2 and in effect, I have computed the power of the bulb with a 25:1 overestimate- based on an incorrect assumption, but based on a correct reading and a correct formula. Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and do not know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus on an area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know that the filament radiates the most photons, even if that reading is diminished in intensity from a clear bulb … this technique can still result in a 3:1 over-estimate of the net emissivity of the bulb, since there is a strong contribution from a hot filament. This can be demonstrated rather easily to be factual. That is the problem with this paper. Levi seems to be telling us only this: that if one applies 800 watts to a Inconel wire, it will reach 1300 degrees. But we already knew that. We cannot extrapolate the emissivity of the resistor wire to the entire surface of the reactor. As for a thermocouple, placement is everything. I saw NO DATA on calibration of the thermocouple, only that someone who already screwed up the experiment royally thinks that it verifies what could be a grossly incorrect calibration. In fact this is admitted “We also found that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe placed on the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct temperature measurement with the required precision impossible.” So they admit the thermocouple reading was not done with any precision on the exterior of the tube – only on the caps which are much cooler and consequently the thermocouple verifies nothing! $64 question: Was Rossi present at the time the
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: $64 question: Was Rossi present at the time the reactor was opened? Yes, the reports says he was. If so, and this has been reported on E-Cat World, then that means the sample which Bianchini tested was not independently obtained – and could have been tampered with by Rossi himself – who is known to have purchased several grams of Ni-62. If you are going to make the assertion that Rossi inserted fake ash into the mix, I suggest you come up with a plausible reason. As I pointed out earlier, Rossi would have no motivation to do this. See: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98051.html It is tiresome that you and others keep trotting out this absurd, unfounded, pointless conspiracy theory. You should at least make an effort to justify it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
Jones, you are discussing one of the main concerns about the accuracy of the test as far as I can ascertain. Someone needs to review the behavior of the alumina when illuminated from within to prove that we are not being confused. This should not be too difficult since any light source that resembles the spectrum emitted by the resistor heating elements would work. I can imagine taking a small laser and shinning it through a piece of alumina that is viewed by a thermal camera. We know that the laser power is small, therefore if the camera determines a large power being emitted, then the test is suspect. Does anyone on the list have the materials and time available to perform such a test? Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 10, 2014 12:35 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report Here is a reduction ad absurdum example of why this experiment was unbelievably poorly designed. NOTE: The experiment could still be gainful, but the Levi’s results do not prove anything, as presented. The thermocouple does not help – it is admitted by Levi that it was accurate only on the two caps, which were much cooler. Let’s say I claim to have a hundred watt OU lightbulb that I want to sell to you for $1 million. If it were a glass bulb, and clear, and I use the IR camera to measure the filament temperature, and then used that temperature to compute the emissivity of the entire surface area of the bulb, say 100 cm^2, then you would cry foul – since the obviously only the surface area of the filament is responsible. That filament area could be 1 cm^2 and in effect, I have computed the power of the bulb with a 25:1 overestimate- based on an incorrect assumption, but based on a correct reading and a correct formula. Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and do not know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus on an area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know that the filament radiates the most photons, even if that reading is diminished in intensity from a clear bulb … this technique can still result in a 3:1 over-estimate of the net emissivity of the bulb, since there is a strong contribution from a hot filament. This can be demonstrated rather easily to be factual. That is the problem with this paper. Levi seems to be telling us only this: that if one applies 800 watts to a Inconel wire, it will reach 1300 degrees. But we already knew that. We cannot extrapolate the emissivity of the resistor wire to the entire surface of the reactor. As for a thermocouple, placement is everything. I saw NO DATA on calibration of the thermocouple, only that someone who already screwed up the experiment royally thinks that it verifies what could be a grossly incorrect calibration. In fact this is admitted “We also found that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe placed on the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct temperature measurement with the required precision impossible.” So they admit the thermocouple reading was not done with any precision on the exterior of the tube – only on the caps which are much cooler and consequently the thermocouple verifies nothing! $64 question: Was Rossi present at the time the reactor was opened? If so, and this has been reported on E-Cat World, then that means the sample which Bianchini tested was not independently obtained – and could have been tampered with by Rossi himself – who is known to have purchased several grams of Ni-62. From: Jed Rothwell JB: Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann law) The temperature was also measured with a thermocouple, as noted. Ah, but your point is that even if the the temperature is measured correctly, may not reflect the power correctly. That would be a rewrite of the textbooks. In any case, a temperature calibration curve goes down, not up, at higher power levels.
Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: If it were a clear COP of 3, it should be pretty easy to heat a tub of water or do some kind of obvious work. This is the most frustrating part of following the E-Cat story. In several years of watching, I have yet to see unequivocal calorimetry, unmarred in one aspect or another. In a scientific context, there would be some responsiveness to the embarrassment brought about by this situation, and the calorimetry would gradually improve to the point of being easy for all to accept. It would seem that in the context of the E-Cat, such pressure has not been as effective. This is not to say that IH or Rossi owe us anything. I just wistfully wish for an E-Cat immersed in a tub of water and some simple mercury thermometers to measure the delta T. Eric
