subject:"RE\: \[Vo\]\:On deception"

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:

 you have a point.

 a good idea for latter as someone said in a forum is:
 - to invite students who will play the skeptics, with stupid ideas, most
 stupid, some not so stupid... with naive, not far from the one of
 incompetent or voluntarily stupid skeptics.
 - to invite few stage magicians, that will look at evident place to put
 smoke and mirror, and rule residual claims of fraud.

 this is not science, nor industry, it is psychiatry.



Robert W. Wood played such games to debunk N-Rays:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5c3gxZmZpRlRRTTg/edit?usp=sharing


Harry





 2013/5/31 Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com

 To deceive an electronics guy, one may use a chemistry trick.
 To deceive a chemist, one may use software tricks.
 To deceive a computer scientist, one may use a physics trick.

 But using an electricity trick to deceive a group of experts sent
 by a power industry association is stupid.
 --
 Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:On deception

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 Watch the cheese video. The ends of the wires that the magician wants you
 to measure are already exposed. Clever, huh.


 Too clever by half. This would not begin to fool any scientist,
 electrician or EE on God's Green Earth. There has not been an electrician
 since Edison who would not check all the wires, and who might fall for this.


You miss the point as usual, which was that no wires need to be stripped to
measure voltage.


As for no engineers being fooled by the video, that's because the
alternative to a trick is cheese power. Almost no one would be fooled by it
for that reason. The immediate assumption is a trick and so the immediate
reaction is to look for it. Plus Tinsel deliberately left a couple of clues
in the video. That's not the case for the ecat.


But what if he found some true believers in cheese power, or instead of
cheese, he used a little box that was maybe a little radioactive, and he
called it a cold fusion electrical generator. Then he could have used the
same laissez faire Swedish team and Levi. And say he skillfully built up
expectations in a very elaborate way over a period of time, and was a
little more careful in the deception, and maybe used a more complicated
input with 3-phase power, and restricted the measurements and inspection to
protect his secret sauce. I'm confident that team could have been easily
fooled. And then, instead of nice video with a couple of tells, he gets the
true believer team to write up their account of the device. Now, if the
Swedes were fooled, people who have access only to the written account
cannot determine what the trick is, and so you and the rest of the cold
fusion believers would insist that unless we can prove what the trick was,
it has to be real cold fusion.


You are just guessing about the measurements they must have made to exclude
things. But those things are not in the paper, and to hear their
interviews, it sounds like they were mostly napping.



 No, they measured the voltage at the connection points on the 830, or some
 other previously prepared monitoring points.


 Quoting from the report:

 As in the previous test, the LCD display of the electrical power meter
 (PCE-830) was
 continually filmed by a video camera. The clamp ammeters were connected
 upstream from the
 control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed,
 and to produce a nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the
 measurements themselves.

 As noted, they made a video showing every minute of both tests. Rossi
 could not have touched the equipment or the instruments.


What the hell does that prove? The argument is that Rossi set it up
beforehand. In the first case, that's obvious. Any measurements they made
could easily have been on points provided by Rossi when the experiment was
set up, or on the PCE830, which clearly is not designed to detect
deception; it's a but like Essen using a relative humidity probe to measure
steam quality. You're not suggesting they would strip the wires while the
experiment was in progress are you? So that monitoring video is meaningless.



 This is proof that the people doing the tests are not naive idiots who
 trust Rossi, and that they took reasonable precautions against obvious
 tricks such as hidden wires.


It is the furthest thing from proof of anything. It in no way excludes the
likely possibility that Rossi set up both experiments, leaving only safe
points to monitor the input during the run. (Is that video publicly
available, by the way? I haven't seen it.)

Additional messages from the authors confirm that they looked for things
 like a DC component in the electricity and they checked the equipment stand
 to sure it was not charged with electricity.



Essen said they excluded it, but he didn't say how. If we're just going to
accept what they say without scrutiny, then why bother reading the paper at
all? Just accept their conclusions and rejoice.


Except that Essen said of the steam tests that the steam was dry based on a
visual inspection, and then based on a measurement with a relative humidity
probe. So, I'm not prepared to accept his claim at face value. And even if
his measurements do exclude dc in the exposed conductors, I'm not prepared
to accept that a concealed conductor was not there.


There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know how
it might have been done. But I know there was a rat's nest of wires, and an
unnecessarily complex method of supplying power, and they used a completely
inadequate measuring device, so that deception on Rossi's part is far more
likely than the sort of power density they claim without melting, let alone
a nuclear reaction.

There is not the slightest chance Rossi could have done anything so easy to
 discover as the hidden wire under the insulation trick.


You should keep an open mind. That kind of

Re: [Vo]:On deception

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:




 Ah, so it's OK to argue that Cude is, in effect, hand-waving away Ohm's
 law and that's indefensible because that law is accepted but it's not OK to
 argue that Carat's dismissal of conventional physics as being wrong about
 LENR is also hand waving?


 Yes, this is okay. We are talking about two fundamentally different
 things: actions taken by engineers and laws of nature.


Right, but as long as the actions are not freely testable by others, the
possibility that they have been fooled or are incompetent is a valid
alternative explanation for the claims.  People believed N-rays and
polywater based on mistakes too, but in those cases the claims could be
tested, and were shown to be the result of confirmation bias (or deception)
or experimental error. If the ecat were accessible to anyone, deception
could be ruled out.




 Let's go over this carefully, because this is an important distinction,
 and Cude has often repeated this mistake.

 First of all, Carat is not dismissing laws of nature. She is only saying
 that cold fusion cannot be explained by theory, but a theory is not
 required to explain an anomaly before you accept that it is true.



Right. And an understanding of a trick is not required before you accept
that it is a trick.




 Cude claims there may be a method by which an engineer can cause a reactor
 to consume 900 W yet the instruments only show 300 W.



This is demonstrably true. There are many ways. You can cause a reactor to
consume 900W yet the instruments show nothing, as seen in the cheese video.
Of course, showing zero would be too suspicious, because then people would
question the presence of the instruments, so they show a fraction.


 However, he says he cannot specify what that method is. Therefore, his
 assertion cannot be tested or falsified, so it is not scientific.


The entire experiment can't be tested, making it unscientific, as I've
argued from the start.


But if the instrument were made generally available for testing, deception
could be quickly falsified, if it's not used. If we could buy them at home
depot, and heat our homes with them, that would falsify deception. (And I'm
not saying commercial products are needed for credibility -- only that it
proves that deception *is* falsifiable.)

Anything that an engineer can do is known to science, by definition.


Any magician's illusion is known to science. That doesn't mean a scientist
will understand the illusion just from observation. And it doesn't mean he
is forced to believe in magic, if he can't duplicate the illusion with a
spice model. And this written report is a far inferior window on the claims
than direct observation, when it comes to detecting deception.



 McKubre does not have to supply a theory before his claim is fully
 accepted.


No one disagrees with this. The disagreement is that you have to supply an
explanation for alternative explanations before you can accept their
possibility. What McKubre needs is robust evidence, which doesn't exist.
The alternative explanation of artifacts and errors fits the erratic and
unreproducible observations far better, even if they can't be identified in
detail.



 However long it takes, science is never allowed to dismiss the anomaly.


What science is allowed to accept is not dictated by you. Anyway, science
fully accepts anomalies that have good evidence to support them. It always
has. It rejects claimed anomalies for which the evidence is weak or absent.
It largely rejects claims of homeopathy, dowsing, perpetual motion, and
cold fusion.



 Conversely, the only way to prove that McKubre, Fleischmann and the others
 are wrong would be to show an error in the laws of thermodynamics.


Nonsense. The only way to prove them right is with consistent evidence,
which after 24 years is still absent.



 It is NEVER okay to say:

 An engineer (Rossi) is doing something to make a fake test I do not
 understand and cannot describe, but I am sure he is doing it. This is empty
 speculation. It cannot be tested or falsified so it is not scientific.



If the claim cannot be freely tested, it is not only ok to be suspicious of
deception, but outrageously gullible not to be. This is especially the case
if the claimant stands to benefit financially from the confidence in his
claims, and even moreso if he has a controversial past involving deceptions
related to energy.


Any act that a person can do to make a fake test must be described by the
 textbooks and by SPICE. If it is not in the textbooks, that makes it a
 genuine anomaly. In other words, if Rossi has discovered a way to make a
 power meter report 900 W as 300 W, but SPICE cannot simulate that method,
 that makes it an important new discovery that the instrument makers and EEs
 must investigate.




Your kind of thinking is the reason there are so many frauds in the world.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Mark, you quoted Siegel as saying that CF violated physics because it did
 not act like hot fusion. Carat simply pointed out that CF was not like hot
 fusion and this comparison was not valid. She simply made a statement of
 belief, not a proof.  Siegel also made a statement of belief, not a proof
 or fact.



They are hardly equivalent. Carat's statement is that of a true believer
with no knowledge, background, or experience. That sort of thing can be
said (and is) about any pseudoscientific claim. Perpetual motion is not
like ordinary motion. Homeopathy is not like ordinary water chemistry.
Psychic energy is not like ordinary energy. It is meaningless.


Of course, anomalous results sometimes defy current understanding. That's
how science progresses. But evidence for such results has to be as strong
as the evidence that suggests they are impossible. Anti-gravity violates
current theories, and a magician who releases a ball that files up will not
convince anyone that he has a genuine new anomaly, any more than the
various claims of pseudoscientists with lame or absent evidence. But
careful experiments, widely performed, that show consistent anti-gravity
effects would be immediately accepted, just as HTSC was.


Siegel's statement simply says that copious, highly robust, and consistent
evidence suggest cold fusion won't work. That's not hand-waving at all.
It's based on more than half a century of solid evidence. Evidence for cold
fusion needs to be as strong to be accepted, and so far, it is pitifully
weak.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


  The Elforsk web page announcement is better than a signed statement, in
 my opinion. So was EPRI's statement. A conclusion issued by an organization
 carries more weight than statement signed by one EE.

  Along the same lines, when the CEO of National Instruments gave a 20
 minute video recorded presentation about cold fusion in front of thousands
 of employees, that was a bigger commitment and more convincing that brief
 statement from a corporate executive that yes, we have consulted with
 Rossi and others. Anyone who still claims the NI has no interest in cold
 fusion is nuts.


Nothing against Elforsk or NI, but is there a recent example of a
revolution in science that was adopted first by instrument makers and
energy companies. And interest from NI is not surprising; it's a potential
market.



  Also, no EE here or anywhere else has presented a serious description of
 how this might be fraud.



And no physicist here or anywhere else has presented a serious description
of how this might be a nuclear reaction. But that doesn't stop you from
believing it is.



 Diagrams showing hidden wires and claims that you can add a circuit to an
 electronic device that magically makes 900 W of electricity look like 300 W
 are not serious.



The simple fact is that the measurements made and reported are woefully
inadequate to exclude deception.




 Cude has waved his hands and said there might be a method of deception
 that he has not thought of yet. As I have often pointed out, such
 assertions cannot be tested or falsified.



Of course they can be falsified. (Popper would turn over in his grave if he
heard you.) Many better methods have been described to exclude fraud. If
you cut the wires to the ecat and it kept producing heat, that would
falsify it. If you used a finite source of energy instead of an infinite
one, it would be falsified. Have skeptics wire the ecat and put a scope
right on the ecat connections, or at least the power to the box. Use the
output to generate electricity and close the loop and then run the ecat far
from any power lines -- falsified. Replace fossil fuels with ecats, and
it's falsified So it's falsifiable. If it weren't falsifiable, it could
never become practical.


Now, in experiments behind closed doors, revealed only written reports, you
could neither prove it's faked nor that it's real. Either way would require
trust, and while important in science, no theory can depend on it.


So the ordinary way to falsify a deception theory, is the way theories are
tested all the time. Make ecats generally available to *any* qualified
scientists for testing. Just the ecat, and the box if Rossi insists. And
send along a thug to prevent tampering. Then let the scientists do all the
wiring independently and the testing completely independently. If CERN,
MIT, LANL and SRI all come back with the same results consistent with
Rossi's claims, deception is as falsified as any theory could be. Of course
Rossi won't ever let that happen, but that doesn't change the fact that
it's falsifiable.


Now, tell us how the theory that it's a nuclear reaction is falsifiable.
Because if it's not, then it's not science.


 There might be an error in Ohm's law we have not yet discovered, but until
 you specify what that error actually is, you have no basis for arguing that
 law may be wrong.


Right, but you see the difference. There is no secret involved, and no
artificial constraints. Anyone on the planet can test Ohm's law, and the
results are reproducible. If Ohm's law only worked on one material for
which only one person had the recipe, and he restricted access to testing
it, suspicion would be justified. Except there's not a lot of money in it.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 LENR complies with all know physical laws. The problem is that few
 scientists have a background in this new branch of science.


You don't know what you're talking about. LENR is contrary to predictions
based on a century of copious, reproducible experimental results which fit
a highly consistent and robust picture. That doesn't mean it's wrong, as
history shows; it means the evidence for it must be as consistent and
robust as the evidence that predicts it's wrong before it will be taken
seriously. At present, there is no consistent evidence for it at all.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Let me quote the specific text from Cude that I discussed:

 You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've
 already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True
 believers insist on an explanation of how deception might explain the
 alleged observations, but do not hold themselves to the same standard to
 give an explanation for how nuclear reactions could be initiated in those
 circumstances, or how they could produce that much heat without radiation,
 or how NiH could produce 100 times the power density of nuclear fuel
 without melting, regardless of what produces the energy. That doesn't
 stop you from believing it happens though.

 Let's go over this one more time:

 True believers insist on an explanation of how deception might explain
 the alleged observations . . .

 Yes, because any method of deception MUST fit in with textbook physics


Sure, but that doesn't mean observers MUST know what it is. This is
impossible where all the skeptical observers have is a written account of
the observations.


You're asking skeptics like me to model the deception, when if you followed
the other threads, the paper is so bad, we can't agree on where
measurements were made, and some people can't figure out that 3-phase was
used. It's nonsense to talk about ordinary scientific scrutiny when that
paper is all we have. Make the ecat available, and then it'll be possible
to exclude tricks. There is no way in the current situation.


 If you cannot simulate it, it is not deception. It is a genuine
 inexplicable anomaly.


So, if a scientist can't explain or simulate how a magician does his tricks
in a restricted and contrived context, they are genuinely magic? That's
utter nonsense. Especially if the scientist is only given a written account
of what the magician did. I don't know how you can write such crap.


Unless genuine inexplicable anomaly includes the possibility of
deception, in which case, I agree.


 Also, you have to define this method in a way that can be falsified,


Deception can be easily falsified if access to the device is given. An
isolated ecat not connected to the mains falsifies the claim that the power
is coming deceptively from the mains, e.g.


And you can't falsify the claim that it's cold fusion without access to the
experiment either.




 . . . .but do not hold themselves to the same standard to give an
 explanation for how nuclear reactions could be initiated in those
 circumstances, or how they could produce that much heat without radiation .
 . .

 YES, again, because these are genuine anomalies.



Only if you are sure there is no deception. Which in this case requires
extreme naiveté.


 That has been proved by replicated, high-sigma experiments.



Even if true -- and the mainstream disagrees -- it doesn't mean Rossi's
experiment is valid. It's a separate claim. The true belief by many in cold
fusion provides fertile soil for scams.



 You do not need to show *WHY* there is heat without radiation, you only
 have to show *THAT* there is 10,000 times more heat than any chemical
 reaction can produce, no chemical changes, and commensurate helium.



Right. And you don't need to show how deception is executed, you only have
to know the possibility is not excluded, as you yourself have admitted.


It's a matter of judgement which possibility is more plausible. To most
intelligent people, the possibility of deception in a case like this --
being utterly common -- is far greater than the possibility of a scientific
revolution -- being rare indeed.





 Cude has made a huge mistake here. He does not understand the scientific
 method.




You don't have the first clue about the scientific method. You're a
computer guy, who spent the last 24 years immersed in pseudoscience, and
you've dropped some of your fortune trying to prove it's right. You're
desperate for vindication. But it's not coming, and you're frustrated.


It's funny how the most vocal advocates for cold fusion shouting that
skeptics are not scientific mostly have no scientific background. You and
Lomax and Krivit (though not on Rossi), Carat, Wuller, Tyler, and all the
engineers on this site. If there were anything to cold fusion, it really
wouldn't need a bunch of untrained idiots to promote it.


All the scientific progress in the last 24 years has been made by people
who think cold fusion is nonsense. And cold fusion advocates have been
spinning their wheels. I think the method used by the ones making progress
is a better method, no matter what you call it.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:50 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 There is one very very simple truth.

 Many will never believe right up until a technology is widely available.



If so, I think it will be a first. I am not aware of a phenomenon that was
widely rejected by the mainstream until a successful technology became
widely available. And energy densities a million times that of dynamite is
not a subtle thing. It should be as demonstrable as the Wright's 1908
flight, which converted all serious skeptics long before commercial flight.


No demonstration could convince them, maybe not even if they ran it
 themselves.



Utter nonsense. A completely isolated device that generates heat orders of
magnitude beyond its weight in gasoline would convince anyone. But an
experiment behind closed doors, reported by hand-picked observers, with
dodgy methods, and directed by someone with a controversial past, will not
do it.


There are plenty of anomalies that were accepted instantly because the
evidence was strong. Your statement has no justification in history.




 Hence we can compare this with other beliefs such as shape shifting
 reptilian royals/politicians, Scientology, and religion etc.



I agree completely. Cold fusion is just like those beliefs, which also have
widely claimed but erratic evidence to support them.





 And skeptics are no more open to being wrong than the most fundamentalist
 true believer of anything else is.


Skeptics would change their minds in a heart beat with good evidence, just
as they did in 1908. But there is nothing that will convince true believers
in cold fusion that they are wrong.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote:



 How did quantum mechanics come about?

 Experimental phenomenon occurred in blackbody radiation that could not be
 explained by the conventional physical theories of the day.



Right, but all the anomalies that led to QM were robust, reproducible, and
widely (even universally) accepted. Anyone could measure the blackbody
spectrum and confirm the UV catastrophe. That's not the case with cold
fusion.


And the development of QM theories to explain the anomalies were accepted
as fast as they could be developed, because they fit the evidence, and made
successful predictions. The whole amazing development of a completely new
and non-intuitive physical theory took about as long as people have been
spinning their wheels in cold fusion (with the benefit of a century of
progress). And in cold fusion it's still 1989.


There really is no resemblance to cold fusion.


 Also, the early planetary model of an atom with a central nucleus and an
 orbiting electron did not fit the conventional theories of the day.

 The conventional theory of the day said that as the electron moved, it
 would lose energy,


Just to get it right, the theory said that an accelerating electron loses
energy, not just a moving one. (circular motion involves acceleration)




 That is what is being said here about cold fusion/LENR/LANR/quantum
 fusion/anomalous heat and transmutations.

 Current nuclear theory does not explain ALL the many effects that are seen
 in this science.



The problem is the evidence for many claimed effects is too weak to be
accepted. The absence of a theory wouldn't matter if the evidence were
robust as is clear from your example of QM and countless others. But when
the evidence is erratic, *and* other evidence suggest the likelihood is
vanishingly small, then it's likely not real. It's likely pathological,
which is why it just limps along for decades with nothing to show for it.



 Please don't give up Mark.  Your voice is needed.


This is the problem with naive cold fusion advocacy. They seem to think
it's an issue like abortion or capital punishment that is settled by
lobbying. But what it needs is better evidence, not better argument. All
the gullible journalists in the world won't change the situation, but a
single reproducible and accessible experiment could. I doubt there will
ever be one.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-06-01 Thread John Berry

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:50 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote:

 There is one very very simple truth.

 Many will never believe right up until a technology is widely available.



 If so, I think it will be a first. I am not aware of a phenomenon that was
 widely rejected by the mainstream until a successful technology became
 widely available.


Flight.
Rockets working in space.

There are always those small minded eager to denouce anything worthwhile or
extraordinary.

Want more, vacuum, telescopes if we go to an older age.

Oh, germs.

I can think of others but you are just making my point.
You aren't work the electrons.
You should know these examples like you should know the basics of
electromagnetism.

It isn't worth arguing with every person of limited vision, education,
understanding, in other words the ignorant.
Because the ignorant ignore things, the uneducated can al least be taught,
but not those willingly ignorant.

 And energy densities a million times that of dynamite is not a subtle
 thing. It should be as demonstrable as the Wright's 1908 flight, which
 converted all serious skeptics long before commercial flight.


 No demonstration could convince them, maybe not even if they ran it
 themselves.



 Utter nonsense. A completely isolated device that generates heat orders of
 magnitude beyond its weight in gasoline would convince anyone.


No, because magic tricks are mighty hard to rule out if one is paranoid and
creative enough, especially when people refuse to accept evidence. (maybe
energy is being beamed wirelessly etc...)
There are many cases of cold fusion showing such outputs, I recall blocks
of palladium sometimes violently exploding with energies that could be be
accounted for.

It is pretty much impossible to do any demonstration that will alone
convince anyone determined not to believe.
Additionally such demonstrations are done and then sceptics will turn a
blind eye to such evidence.

Oh, I just thought on another thing denied by certain believers in
religion, Dinosaurs.
Now I know you think you are more rational than that, but I'm afraid I
don't think you are really.

Skeptics would change their minds in a heart beat with good evidence, just
 as they did in 1908. But there is nothing that will convince true believers
 in cold fusion that they are wrong.


So everyone believed after the first test you think?
Nope!

But this subject shows the true nature of the sceptic.

Flight is in many ways extraordinary and wonderful.
It is also achieved by birds, and hence a caveman knows that a heavier than
air object can fly.

But sceptics to the concept existed not because there is any scientific
reason to think that flight is impossible or that birds are hoaxers.
But because their position is to oppose any worthwhile development,
anything extraordinary however reasonable it may be.

All this exchange has proven is the obvious, that there are those who are
not worth any discussion.

So I will avoid responding to any more trolling.

John

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-06-01 Thread John Berry

Actually thinking about it. the reason these people reject big new thing is
because the have very small minds/vision, this is why they reject anything
big.

That is not the same as stupid, but literally they have very real limits to
them.

They reject these things because they want to keep a very simple and
reductionist view of reality that is as minimalistic as possible.

And as such no wonder they can't accept new information.

Ok, maybe I am getting a little carried away, but then again maybe not.

Think, there are both spiritual and other 'energy' based beliefs and
systems and I now think that there will be evidence for many of these held
within these systems.
And there are scientific belief systems.

Both have large numbers of followers.
Some of the spiritual types do reject scientific knowledge, but as far as I
can tell most don't.

Many belief systems are quite expansive .vs the reductionism in skeptics.

Of course there are scientists with spiritual beliefs etc.
But they tend not to be the skeptics of course.

I can understand the attraction of a simple model for the world, it is more
attractive when trying to understand everything.

I am reminded of these immortal words: There are more things in heaven and
earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I now know the aether is real, a fluid aether at that.
I was aware of the concept long before I accepted it, but it seemed too
complex so I outright rejected it out of distaste.
It was too complex and unattractive to tackle.

So I can appreciate wishing reality was a bit simpler than I eventually
found it to be, and I find looking back at those words above saying them to
my past self.

Except I don't call myself Horatio.

John

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-06-01 Thread Yamali Yamali

Jed wrote: No, it was their idea.

How do you know that? And in case this is one of those oh well, they didn't 
say so but to me it sounds obvious that... assumptions of yours: why on earth 
would anybody who has to write a paper like that bind their own hands behind 
their backs with such a primitive and counter intuitive approach to data 
logging?

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-06-01 Thread Alain Sepeda

2013/6/1 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com


 Nothing against Elforsk or NI, but is there a recent example of a
 revolution in science that was adopted first by instrument makers and
 energy companies. And interest from NI is not surprising; it's a potential
 market.


What was the industry of Lumière brother before inventing Cinema ?
and pasteur ?
and Wright brothers ?
and Nokia before mobile?
the job of einstein, and Edison ?

who first accepted Wright brothers plan existed, and who denied last ?

there are adult courses on innovation in corporations... Sure they talk of
that ! (at least ou professor, Norbert Alter teach us that).

Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

2013-06-01 Thread Robert Lynn

Don't think I have Microsim pspice lying around anywhere anymore (and
non-GUI is very slow and clumsy if not using it frequently), it was an
excellent little tool (or was in late 90's when I used it last) that I
spent 100's of hours with, and is useful even for the amateur, probably
still out there somewhere on the interwebs if hunted for.

Principle problem with using it is that it doesn't have models for the
clamp ammeters transfer functions.  I also don't have the hours required to
hunt this down and run it at the moment.


On 31 May 2013 22:14, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 Robert,

 Dave Roberson has challenged anyone to do a spice model RE: at least one
 of the concerns over DC input power.  Do you know how to use Spice, and
 would you be willing to try to duplicate his model in order to determine if
 its valid, and if not, why?

 -Mark

 ** **

 *From:* Robert Lynn [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 1:26 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

 ** **

 Another EE here (plus mechanical undergrad).  On balance I think Rossi has
 something, but I have been disappointed by too many of his slap-dash demos
 over the last two years to put my reputation on the line in backing him.
  And there are some potentially big holes in the electrical power delivery
 (that have been discussed to death here).  I can't give him the benefit of
 the doubt give his dubious history, and It would need a more rigorously
 instrumented test by people who are more aggressively skeptical than in his
 tests to date for me to give unequivocal support.

 ** **

 On 31 May 2013 18:51, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'd like to throw in as the 4th EE, graduated from University of
 California Santa Barbara 1998.  I would sign.  But if I were there and had
 the wherewithal, I would have insisted on bringing in our own generator to
 provide the input power.  

 ** **

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com
 wrote:

 I join Terry and Jed on this.  EE, 1962.
 I might hesitate, in view of the subversion of some holy pronouncements of
 the physics establishment, but sign I would.


 Ol' Bab



 On 5/31/2013 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

 Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
 registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
 consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de
 wrote:

 Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
 conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

 I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would
 sign such a statement.

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

2013-06-01 Thread David Roberson


Let me make a suggestion Robert.  The linear technology company publishes a 
spice program that can be downloaded and used by the general public.  This is a 
fantastic offering and I have found it extremely accurate.  Anyone who has an 
interest in electronic modeling would be well advised to get this gem.

It took me about 15 minutes to model the performance of a simple diode 
rectified system.  I made a model which showed without any doubt that the power 
being delivered by a sine wave generator can be measured at the source by 
looking only at the fundamental current sine wave component.  Any DC currents 
that flow through this source do not make any difference to the measurement of 
source power.

Also, any harmonic currents that flow due to load distortion do not change the 
power reading at the source as I have stated several times.  If you question 
this assertion, then I think it is common courteously to take the small amount 
of time requested to prove your position.  I will make myself available to help 
you install and operate a model if you wish.

The program SwCAD III also performs FFT's of the current waveform making the 
measurement we are discussing trivial.  Let me know if you need further 
assistance.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 12:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE


Don't think I have Microsim pspice lying around anywhere anymore (and non-GUI 
is very slow and clumsy if not using it frequently), it was an excellent little 
tool (or was in late 90's when I used it last) that I spent 100's of hours 
with, and is useful even for the amateur, probably still out there somewhere on 
the interwebs if hunted for.


Principle problem with using it is that it doesn't have models for the clamp 
ammeters transfer functions.  I also don't have the hours required to hunt this 
down and run it at the moment.




On 31 May 2013 22:14, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:


Robert,
Dave Roberson has challenged anyone to do a spice model RE: at least one of the 
concerns over DC input power.  Do you know how to use Spice, and would you be 
willing to try to duplicate his model in order to determine if its valid, and 
if not, why?
-Mark
 

From: Robert Lynn [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 1:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE


 

Another EE here (plus mechanical undergrad).  On balance I think Rossi has 
something, but I have been disappointed by too many of his slap-dash demos over 
the last two years to put my reputation on the line in backing him.  And there 
are some potentially big holes in the electrical power delivery (that have been 
discussed to death here).  I can't give him the benefit of the doubt give his 
dubious history, and It would need a more rigorously instrumented test by 
people who are more aggressively skeptical than in his tests to date for me to 
give unequivocal support.

 

On 31 May 2013 18:51, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

I'd like to throw in as the 4th EE, graduated from University of California 
Santa Barbara 1998.  I would sign.  But if I were there and had the 
wherewithal, I would have insisted on bringing in our own generator to provide 
the input power.  


 

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com 
wrote:
I join Terry and Jed on this.  EE, 1962.
I might hesitate, in view of the subversion of some holy pronouncements of the 
physics establishment, but sign I would.


Ol' Bab



On 5/31/2013 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:
Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would
sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-06-01 Thread Kevin O'Malley

Joshua:

I have keyed up on your sneering in the past, so it is only right that I
point out that your skepticism on this post is quite healthy and, with the
cheese analogy, even interesting to read.  Once you drop the sneering, you
bring value to Vortex.

The next thing to learn is the difference between hyperskepticism (Big S)
and Small s skepticism.

Let me ask this hypothetical.  If the 7 scientists wheeled in their own
power generator, would you accept this report for the most part as it
stands?




On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 Watch the cheese video. The ends of the wires that the magician wants you
 to measure are already exposed. Clever, huh.


 Too clever by half. This would not begin to fool any scientist,
 electrician or EE on God's Green Earth. There has not been an electrician
 since Edison who would not check all the wires, and who might fall for this.


 You miss the point as usual, which was that no wires need to be stripped
 to measure voltage.


 As for no engineers being fooled by the video, that's because the
 alternative to a trick is cheese power. Almost no one would be fooled by it
 for that reason. The immediate assumption is a trick and so the immediate
 reaction is to look for it. Plus Tinsel deliberately left a couple of clues
 in the video. That's not the case for the ecat.


 But what if he found some true believers in cheese power, or instead of
 cheese, he used a little box that was maybe a little radioactive, and he
 called it a cold fusion electrical generator. Then he could have used the
 same laissez faire Swedish team and Levi. And say he skillfully built up
 expectations in a very elaborate way over a period of time, and was a
 little more careful in the deception, and maybe used a more complicated
 input with 3-phase power, and restricted the measurements and inspection to
 protect his secret sauce. I'm confident that team could have been easily
 fooled. And then, instead of nice video with a couple of tells, he gets the
 true believer team to write up their account of the device. Now, if the
 Swedes were fooled, people who have access only to the written account
 cannot determine what the trick is, and so you and the rest of the cold
 fusion believers would insist that unless we can prove what the trick was,
 it has to be real cold fusion.


 You are just guessing about the measurements they must have made to
 exclude things. But those things are not in the paper, and to hear their
 interviews, it sounds like they were mostly napping.



 No, they measured the voltage at the connection points on the 830, or
 some other previously prepared monitoring points.


 Quoting from the report:

 As in the previous test, the LCD display of the electrical power meter
 (PCE-830) was
 continually filmed by a video camera. The clamp ammeters were connected
 upstream from the
 control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed,
 and to produce a nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the
 measurements themselves.

 As noted, they made a video showing every minute of both tests. Rossi
 could not have touched the equipment or the instruments.


 What the hell does that prove? The argument is that Rossi set it up
 beforehand. In the first case, that's obvious. Any measurements they made
 could easily have been on points provided by Rossi when the experiment was
 set up, or on the PCE830, which clearly is not designed to detect
 deception; it's a but like Essen using a relative humidity probe to measure
 steam quality. You're not suggesting they would strip the wires while the
 experiment was in progress are you? So that monitoring video is meaningless.



 This is proof that the people doing the tests are not naive idiots who
 trust Rossi, and that they took reasonable precautions against obvious
 tricks such as hidden wires.


 It is the furthest thing from proof of anything. It in no way excludes the
 likely possibility that Rossi set up both experiments, leaving only safe
 points to monitor the input during the run. (Is that video publicly
 available, by the way? I haven't seen it.)

 Additional messages from the authors confirm that they looked for things
 like a DC component in the electricity and they checked the equipment stand
 to sure it was not charged with electricity.



 Essen said they excluded it, but he didn't say how. If we're just going to
 accept what they say without scrutiny, then why bother reading the paper at
 all? Just accept their conclusions and rejoice.


 Except that Essen said of the steam tests that the steam was dry based on
 a visual inspection, and then based on a measurement with a relative
 humidity probe. So, I'm not prepared to accept his claim at face value. And
 even if his measurements do exclude dc in the exposed conductors, I'm not
 prepared to accept

Re: [Vo]:On deception

I showed Joshua Cude an experiment using Nanoplasmonic processes that
changed the alpha particle emission half-life of U232 form 69 years to 6
microseconds.



From his post, I conclude that either Cude is not intellectually honest in
that he does not let facts or experiments get in the way of his opinions or
it could be that he just has a memory problem.








On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 LENR complies with all know physical laws. The problem is that few
 scientists have a background in this new branch of science.


 You don't know what you're talking about. LENR is contrary to predictions
 based on a century of copious, reproducible experimental results which fit
 a highly consistent and robust picture. That doesn't mean it's wrong, as
 history shows; it means the evidence for it must be as consistent and
 robust as the evidence that predicts it's wrong before it will be taken
 seriously. At present, there is no consistent evidence for it at all.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-06-01 Thread pagnucco

Axil,

I missed that post.  Can you repost the reference.

Does it have any relationship with the following arxiv.org paper that
might be relevant in plasmons?

New Enhanced Tunneling in Nuclear Processes
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0307012

ABSTRACT:
The small sub-barrier tunneling probability of nuclear processes can be
dramatically enhanced by collision with incident charged particles.
Semiclassical methods of theory of complex trajectories have been applied
to nuclear tunneling, and conditions for the effects have been obtained.
We demonstrate the enhancement of alpha particle decay by incident proton
with energy of about 0.25 MeV. We show that the general features of this
process are common for other sub-barrier nuclear processes and can be
applied to nuclear fission.

-- Lou Pagnucco



Axil^2 wrote:
 I showed Joshua Cude an experiment using Nanoplasmonic processes that
 changed the alpha particle emission half-life of U232 form 69 years to 6
 microseconds.
 [...]

Re: [Vo]:On deception

Did you see this recent post as follows:

===


If you remember this thread as follows:

* *

Entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling – 1/31/12





Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well
below those required to breach this barrier?



This curiosity has been observed is heavy low energy ion collision studies.



http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1393.pdf



This letter presents evidence that (1) 2p transfer (and

not _-particle transfer) is the dominant transfer process

leading to _Z = 2 events in the reaction 16O+208Pb at

energies well below the fusion barrier, and (2) 2p transfer

is significantly enhanced compared to predictions assum-

ing the sequential transfer of uncorrelated protons, with

absolute probabilities as high as those of 1p transfer at

energies near the fusion barrier.



Measurements of transfer probabilities in various reac-

tions and at energies near the fusion barrier have there-

fore been utilized to investigate the role of pairing corre-

lations between the transferred nucleons. Pairing effects

are believed to lead to a significant enhancement of pair

and multi-pair transfer probabilities [2, 4{7]. Closely re-

lated to the phenomenon of pairing correlations is the

nuclear Josephson effect [8], which is understood as the

tunneling of nucleon pairs (i.e. nuclear Cooper-pairs)

through a time-dependent barrier at energies near but be-

low the fusion barrier. This effect is believed to be similar

to that of a supercurrent between two superconductors

separated by an insulator. An enhancement of the trans-

fer probability at sub-barrier energies is therefore com-

monly related to the tunneling of (multi-)Cooper-pairs

from one superfluid nucleus to the other [2].





Following up on this thread as follows:



There has been a new type of Klein tunneling proposed where a
high-potential barrier can be made transparent.



Even though the barrier is impenetrable for single particles, it becomes
transparent when the two particles cross the energy barrier together.



Coupled particles cross energy wall



http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1421254-0


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:51 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 Axil,

 I missed that post.  Can you repost the reference.

 Does it have any relationship with the following arxiv.org paper that
 might be relevant in plasmons?

 New Enhanced Tunneling in Nuclear Processes
 http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0307012

 ABSTRACT:
 The small sub-barrier tunneling probability of nuclear processes can be
 dramatically enhanced by collision with incident charged particles.
 Semiclassical methods of theory of complex trajectories have been applied
 to nuclear tunneling, and conditions for the effects have been obtained.
 We demonstrate the enhancement of alpha particle decay by incident proton
 with energy of about 0.25 MeV. We show that the general features of this
 process are common for other sub-barrier nuclear processes and can be
 applied to nuclear fission.

 -- Lou Pagnucco



 Axil^2 wrote:
  I showed Joshua Cude an experiment using Nanoplasmonic processes that
  changed the alpha particle emission half-life of U232 form 69 years to 6
  microseconds.
  [...]

Re: [Vo]:On deception

The central dilemma at the very heart of LENR is what causes nuclear
reactions at low energy levels.

What causes the nuclei of most elements to fall apart and reassemble their
subatomic parts in new ways?

Two new papers dealing with the nature and workings of the vacuum lend
insight into the LENR question.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6165.pdf

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3923v1.pdf

A sum rule for charged elementary particles

These papers suggest that the nature of the vacuum is defined by
electromagnetic mechanisms revolving around the action of the constant
creation and destruction of virtual dipoles.

The nature of radioactive decay is also driven off the action of the
virtual particle life cycle and its electromagnetic consequences.

These papers also suggest that the nature of space/time can be changed and
controlled by augmentation of this virtual dipole mechanism.

It is generally recognized that the Fine Structure constant is not a really
a constant at all and can vary.


If this FSC can be changed by as little as 4% ether more or less, the
delicate balance between the strong force and the electromagnetic force
will fatally disrupt the forces inside the nucleus.

A successful LENR system will setup a positive feedback loop that produces
enhanced dipole production caused by enhanced electron tunneling.

If the proper dipole production topology is created, dipole production
begets enhanced electron tunneling and vice versa. In this way, an extreme
dipole EMF field can be concentrated is a localized volume of space.

The extreme dipole EMF fields thus produced gets so strong that the fabric
of the vacuum within this nanoscopic localized volume is distorted to the
point that the nuclei of atoms in that volume become unbalanced. The
greatly enhanced and increased dipole EMF counteracts the actions of the
strong force and the nuclei inside the localized volume will fall apart.
The control of this process is possible. Through the control of how the way
that the dipole production topology is setup, the amount of nuclear
disruption is proportional to the strength of the dipole field, from slight
to extreme.






On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Did you see this recent post as follows:

 ===


 If you remember this thread as follows:

 * *

 Entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling – 1/31/12





 Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
 element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well
 below those required to breach this barrier?



 This curiosity has been observed is heavy low energy ion collision studies.



 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1393.pdf



 This letter presents evidence that (1) 2p transfer (and

 not _-particle transfer) is the dominant transfer process

 leading to _Z = 2 events in the reaction 16O+208Pb at

 energies well below the fusion barrier, and (2) 2p transfer

 is significantly enhanced compared to predictions assum-

 ing the sequential transfer of uncorrelated protons, with

 absolute probabilities as high as those of 1p transfer at

 energies near the fusion barrier.



 Measurements of transfer probabilities in various reac-

 tions and at energies near the fusion barrier have there-

 fore been utilized to investigate the role of pairing corre-

 lations between the transferred nucleons. Pairing effects

 are believed to lead to a significant enhancement of pair

 and multi-pair transfer probabilities [2, 4{7]. Closely re-

 lated to the phenomenon of pairing correlations is the

 nuclear Josephson effect [8], which is understood as the

 tunneling of nucleon pairs (i.e. nuclear Cooper-pairs)

 through a time-dependent barrier at energies near but be-

 low the fusion barrier. This effect is believed to be similar

 to that of a supercurrent between two superconductors

 separated by an insulator. An enhancement of the trans-

 fer probability at sub-barrier energies is therefore com-

 monly related to the tunneling of (multi-)Cooper-pairs

 from one superfluid nucleus to the other [2].





 Following up on this thread as follows:



 There has been a new type of Klein tunneling proposed where a
 high-potential barrier can be made transparent.



 Even though the barrier is impenetrable for single particles, it becomes
 transparent when the two particles cross the energy barrier together.



 Coupled particles cross energy wall




 http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1421254-0


 On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:51 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 Axil,

 I missed that post.  Can you repost the reference.

 Does it have any relationship with the following arxiv.org paper that
 might be relevant in plasmons?

 New Enhanced Tunneling in Nuclear Processes
 http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0307012

 ABSTRACT:
 The small sub-barrier tunneling probability of nuclear

Re: [Vo]:On deception

This is the post you wanted to see as follows:

=

See references:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1;
source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%
2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-
NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ

also see

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=331


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The central dilemma at the very heart of LENR is what causes nuclear
 reactions at low energy levels.

 What causes the nuclei of most elements to fall apart and reassemble their
 subatomic parts in new ways?

 Two new papers dealing with the nature and workings of the vacuum lend
 insight into the LENR question.

 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6165.pdf

 The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light

 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3923v1.pdf

 A sum rule for charged elementary particles

 These papers suggest that the nature of the vacuum is defined by
 electromagnetic mechanisms revolving around the action of the constant
 creation and destruction of virtual dipoles.

 The nature of radioactive decay is also driven off the action of the
 virtual particle life cycle and its electromagnetic consequences.

 These papers also suggest that the nature of space/time can be changed and
 controlled by augmentation of this virtual dipole mechanism.

 It is generally recognized that the Fine Structure constant is not a
 really a constant at all and can vary.


 If this FSC can be changed by as little as 4% ether more or less, the
 delicate balance between the strong force and the electromagnetic force
 will fatally disrupt the forces inside the nucleus.

 A successful LENR system will setup a positive feedback loop that produces
 enhanced dipole production caused by enhanced electron tunneling.

 If the proper dipole production topology is created, dipole production
 begets enhanced electron tunneling and vice versa. In this way, an extreme
 dipole EMF field can be concentrated is a localized volume of space.

 The extreme dipole EMF fields thus produced gets so strong that the fabric
 of the vacuum within this nanoscopic localized volume is distorted to the
 point that the nuclei of atoms in that volume become unbalanced. The
 greatly enhanced and increased dipole EMF counteracts the actions of the
 strong force and the nuclei inside the localized volume will fall apart.
 The control of this process is possible. Through the control of how the way
 that the dipole production topology is setup, the amount of nuclear
 disruption is proportional to the strength of the dipole field, from slight
 to extreme.






 On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Did you see this recent post as follows:

 ===


 If you remember this thread as follows:

 * *

 Entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling – 1/31/12





 Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
 element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well
 below those required to breach this barrier?



 This curiosity has been observed is heavy low energy ion collision
 studies.



 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1393.pdf



 This letter presents evidence that (1) 2p transfer (and

 not _-particle transfer) is the dominant transfer process

 leading to _Z = 2 events in the reaction 16O+208Pb at

 energies well below the fusion barrier, and (2) 2p transfer

 is significantly enhanced compared to predictions assum-

 ing the sequential transfer of uncorrelated protons, with

 absolute probabilities as high as those of 1p transfer at

 energies near the fusion barrier.



 Measurements of transfer probabilities in various reac-

 tions and at energies near the fusion barrier have there-

 fore been utilized to investigate the role of pairing corre-

 lations between the transferred nucleons. Pairing effects

 are believed to lead to a significant enhancement of pair

 and multi-pair transfer probabilities [2, 4{7]. Closely re-

 lated to the phenomenon of pairing correlations is the

 nuclear Josephson effect [8], which is understood as the

 tunneling of nucleon pairs (i.e. nuclear Cooper-pairs)

 through a time-dependent barrier at energies near but be-

 low the fusion barrier. This effect is believed to be similar

 to that of a supercurrent between two superconductors

 separated by an insulator. An enhancement of the trans-

 fer probability at sub-barrier energies is therefore com-

 monly related to the tunneling of (multi-)Cooper-pairs

 from one superfluid nucleus to the other [2].





 Following up on this thread as follows:



 There has been a new type of Klein tunneling proposed where a
 high-potential barrier can be made transparent.



 Even though the barrier is impenetrable for single particles, it becomes
 transparent when the two particles cross the energy barrier together.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-06-01 Thread pagnucco

 This is the post you wanted to see as follows:

 =

 See references:
Interesting paper.

I've only perused it, but it may be that eigenstates of unstable atoms are
sometimes dramatically shifted in these environments
- deep potential wells can become much shallower when the hamiltonian of
the entire system is taken into account.


 http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1;
 source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%
 2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-
 NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ

 also see

 http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=331


 On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The central dilemma at the very heart of LENR is what causes nuclear
 reactions at low energy levels.

 What causes the nuclei of most elements to fall apart and reassemble
 their
 subatomic parts in new ways?
[...]

Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

2013-06-01 Thread Alan Fletcher

 From: Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
 Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 9:14:06 AM
 
 Don't think I have Microsim pspice lying around anywhere anymore (and
 non-GUI is very slow and clumsy if not using it frequently), it was
 an excellent little tool (or was in late 90's when I used it last)
 that I spent 100's of hours with, and is useful even for the
 amateur, probably still out there somewhere on the interwebs if
 hunted for.

ltspice (which I use) has a nice little schematic editor (hierarchical, with 
symbols and one sheet at each level) and waveform display [you can do 
arithmetic on nodes, eg power = (V(node1)-V(node2))*I(comp.pin) ]. Works fine 
(for me) up to a couple of thousand nodes.

I'm not sure what models you want -- behavioral voltage and current models

 Bxxx node1 node2 V =  expression of node voltages, pin currents etc etc
 Bxxx node1 node2 I =  expression of node voltages, pin currents etc etc

Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

2013-06-01 Thread Alan Fletcher

 From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 9:28:13 AM
 
 Let me make a suggestion Robert. The linear technology company
 publishes a spice program that can be downloaded and used by the
 general public. 

That's the LTspice I just recommended.

RE: [Vo]:On deception

2013-06-01 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well below
those required to breach this barrier?

 

Those who have been hangin' out in the Dime Box Saloon for a few years know
of my descriptions of subatomic particles as some form of localized
(dimensionally constrained) oscillations of some mediu, (the vacuum).  This
physical model would predict the empirical observation of how two coupled
(entangled) protons do this...

 

-Mark Iverson

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 11:29 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:On deception

 

Did you see this recent post as follows:

 

===

 

If you remember this thread as follows:

 

Entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling - 1/31/12

 

 

Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well below
those required to breach this barrier? 

 

This curiosity has been observed is heavy low energy ion collision studies.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1393.pdf

 

This letter presents evidence that (1) 2p transfer (and

not _-particle transfer) is the dominant transfer process

leading to _Z = 2 events in the reaction 16O+208Pb at

energies well below the fusion barrier, and (2) 2p transfer

is significantly enhanced compared to predictions assum-

ing the sequential transfer of uncorrelated protons, with

absolute probabilities as high as those of 1p transfer at

energies near the fusion barrier.

 

Measurements of transfer probabilities in various reac-

tions and at energies near the fusion barrier have there-

fore been utilized to investigate the role of pairing corre-

lations between the transferred nucleons. Pairing effects

are believed to lead to a significant enhancement of pair

and multi-pair transfer probabilities [2, 4{7]. Closely re-

lated to the phenomenon of pairing correlations is the

nuclear Josephson effect [8], which is understood as the

tunneling of nucleon pairs (i.e. nuclear Cooper-pairs)

through a time-dependent barrier at energies near but be-

low the fusion barrier. This effect is believed to be similar

to that of a supercurrent between two superconductors

separated by an insulator. An enhancement of the trans-

fer probability at sub-barrier energies is therefore com-

monly related to the tunneling of (multi-)Cooper-pairs

from one superfluid nucleus to the other [2].

 

 

Following up on this thread as follows:

 

There has been a new type of Klein tunneling proposed where a high-potential
barrier can be made transparent.

 

Even though the barrier is impenetrable for single particles, it becomes
transparent when the two particles cross the energy barrier together. 

 

Coupled particles cross energy wall

 

http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6
-1421254-0

 

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:51 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

Axil,

I missed that post.  Can you repost the reference.

Does it have any relationship with the following arxiv.org paper that
might be relevant in plasmons?

New Enhanced Tunneling in Nuclear Processes
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0307012

ABSTRACT:
The small sub-barrier tunneling probability of nuclear processes can be
dramatically enhanced by collision with incident charged particles.
Semiclassical methods of theory of complex trajectories have been applied
to nuclear tunneling, and conditions for the effects have been obtained.
We demonstrate the enhancement of alpha particle decay by incident proton
with energy of about 0.25 MeV. We show that the general features of this
process are common for other sub-barrier nuclear processes and can be
applied to nuclear fission.

-- Lou Pagnucco




Axil^2 wrote:
 I showed Joshua Cude an experiment using Nanoplasmonic processes that
 changed the alpha particle emission half-life of U232 form 69 years to 6
 microseconds.

 [...]

Re: [Vo]:On deception

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 The simple fact is that the measurements made and reported are woefully
 inadequate to exclude deception.




Unless Rossi tells people how to build an ecat or starts selling them, no
test will ever exclude deception.
It always possible that whoever is chosen to perform the test
will manipulate the instruments and circumstances to produce a trick
because they are part of a conspiracy to commit fraud.
If you accept the word of the chosen testers that it is real, then it is
because you
believe testers to be trustworthy. Likewise if the testers concluded that
the ecat did not work, the true believers will reject the assessment
because they consider the testers untrustworthy.

Unless evidence of fraud surfaces, I think it wise to tentatively accept
the results. Of course, you can always change your mind,
because you aren't expected to display unwavering faith in Rossi. This
is not a cult.



Harry

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-06-01 Thread Jed Rothwell

Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:


 Likewise if the testers concluded that the ecat did not work, the true
 believers will reject the assessment
 because they consider the testers untrustworthy.


There have been several failed tests, such as the one NASA did. I do not
know anyone who claims these tests actually worked and NASA was lying. So I
guess that means I do not know any true believers. I think that label is
unhelpful.

I think it is possible to conduct a definitive test in the black box mode
where you have no access to the inside of the reactor. I think this can be
done at Rossi's facility. It makes no difference where you conduct such a
test. Rossi has no magic ability to affect instruments.

The recent tests by Levi et al. came very close to definitive. If they
would use a somewhat more sophisticated watt meter and/or a battery backup
or external generator I do not think there will be any rational objections
left. However, I am certain that people such as Cude, Yugo and Park would
not accept such a result. They would claim there may be a hidden method of
practicing deception. I consider that impossible, and in any case -- as I
have said -- that assertion is not falsifiable, so it does not count. There
may be an invisible pink unicorn from Alpha Centauri adding heat to the
cell with advanced technology indistinguishable from magic . . . but until
someone proposes a method of detecting this unicorn, that hypothesis has no
merit.


Unless evidence of fraud surfaces, I think it wise to tentatively accept
 the results.


This is the sensible approach.



 Of course, you can always change your mind,
 because you aren't expected to display unwavering faith in Rossi. This
 is not a cult.


Right. And Rossi is not the only person doing cold fusion. Even if he is
wrong or a fraud, that has no bearing on the work of others. They do not
answer for him.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:On deception

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:


 Skeptics would change their minds in a heart beat with good evidence, just
 as they did in 1908. But there is nothing that will convince true believers
 in cold fusion that they are wrong.






You should persuade the youtube poster to disclose his cheese power trick.
Vortex members could
then determine if Rossi could have concealed such a trick within his given
set up. Otherwise there is no compelling to reason to be impressed by the
trick.
However, I suspect you won't be told because the youtube poster just enjoys
staging magic tricks and used the occasion of the ecat report to post
another trick.


Harry

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-06-01 Thread Jed Rothwell

Cude wrote:


 The simple fact is that the measurements made and reported are woefully
 inadequate to exclude deception.


That is not a simple fact. It is an imaginary fact, like all of Cude's
statements about McKubre. He says things and then assumes they are correct,
but saying does not make it so.

Science would be a lot easier and more fun if the Cude method worked, and
we just make stuff up and have it magically be true. I, for one, would
simply assert that cold fusion powered cars are everywhere, and if Cude
would only step outside and look at one, he would see I am right. So
convincing! So clean, clear cut, so obvious! It is a shame I am constrained
by boring facts and graphs, and I can only point to things like calorimetry
and the laws of thermodynamics to make my case.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:On deception

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:


 Likewise if the testers concluded that the ecat did not work, the true
 believers will reject the assessment
 because they consider the testers untrustworthy.


 There have been several failed tests, such as the one NASA did. I do not
 know anyone who claims these tests actually worked and NASA was lying. So I
 guess that means I do not know any true believers. I think that label is
 unhelpful.



Of course the label is unhelpful.
So are labels and phrases like pathological science, too good to be
true and extraordinary claims...
BTW is it ok to use the phrase too evil to be true as justification to
not investigate horrendous crimes?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-06-01 Thread Kevin O'Malley

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

  It should be as demonstrable as the Wright's 1908 flight, which converted
 all serious skeptics long before commercial flight. There are plenty of
 anomalies that were accepted instantly because the evidence was strong.
 Your statement has no justification in history.

***History isn't exactly on your side of this argument when you include
the Wright brothers.  They first flew in 1903, first demonstrated publicly
in 1908 because there was no one willing to buy airplanes from them until
that time.  Does this mean they were anti-science frauds for those 5
years?  Commercial flight was invented the moment they first flew, but the
first commercial flight transaction of the Wright brothers selling an
airplane didn't happen for 5 years.  Very few serious skeptics were
converted during this period, because of the lack of IP protection and
because the customers weren't serious about buying it.  Every single
person who asked for a demo (and there were many) refused to buy airplanes
if the Wrights demonstrated it, for 5 years.  Finally, the military opened
a contract and they flew to that contract.  Were they frauds?   Skeptopaths
at the time certainly called them that, just like skeptopaths at this time
call Rossi a fraud even after an independent test of his device.

So, this particular, independent test which takes a black box approach in
order to preserve the industrial trade secret is an intermediate step.
Would the Wright brothers have demonstrated their technology if there was
no intellectual property protection available to them?  As it turned out,
Glenn Curtiss  others tried to steal the Wright patents anyways.

Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

2013-06-01 Thread Berke Durak

Does anyone know if the power analyzer sees DC *VOLTAGES*?

-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread Alain Sepeda

you have a point.

a good idea for latter as someone said in a forum is:
- to invite students who will play the skeptics, with stupid ideas, most
stupid, some not so stupid... with naive, not far from the one of
incompetent or voluntarily stupid skeptics.
- to invite few stage magicians, that will look at evident place to put
smoke and mirror, and rule residual claims of fraud.

this is not science, nor industry, it is psychiatry.


2013/5/31 Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com

 To deceive an electronics guy, one may use a chemistry trick.
 To deceive a chemist, one may use software tricks.
 To deceive a computer scientist, one may use a physics trick.

 But using an electricity trick to deceive a group of experts sent
 by a power industry association is stupid.
 --
 Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:On deception

a group of experts sent by a power industry

Are you suggesting the power industry association had a hand in picking these 
experts and the group they eventually came up with included Giuseppe Levi and 
Hanno Essen based on their expertise? 


 Von: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 13:02 Freitag, 31.Mai 2013
Betreff: [Vo]:On deception
 

To deceive an electronics guy, one may use a chemistry trick.
To deceive a chemist, one may use software tricks.
To deceive a computer scientist, one may use a physics trick.

But using an electricity trick to deceive a group of experts sent
by a power industry association is stupid.
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:On deception

Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:

But using an electricity trick to deceive a group of experts sent
by a power industry association is stupid.

Well said! The whole notion is hilarious.

Even if it were shown that these people are not experts, you can be sure
someone at Elforsk read that report carefully before issuing the statement
here:

http://www.elforsk.se/Aktuellt/Svenska-forskare-har-testat-Rossis-energikatalysator--E-cat/

Organizations such as this one do not casually post such statements on
their web site. This statement says, in effect, that we are looking at
revolutionary technology. It is similar to EPRI's understated but
unequivocal conclusion:

EPRI PERSPECTIVE This work confirms the claims of Fleischmann, Pons, and
Hawkins of the production of excess heat in deuterium-loaded palladium
cathodes at levels too large for chemical transformation.

Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:

a group of experts sent by a power industry

Are you suggesting the power industry association had a hand in picking
these experts and the group they eventually came up with included Giuseppe
Levi and Hanno Essen based on their expertise?

No, I expect Levi went to the Swedes, and they -- in turn -- went to the
Elforsk. Essen is a V.I.P. academic who would have no difficulty getting
this level of funding.

Whether these people are experts or not I'm sure the Association reviewed
their work carefully before issuing a statement. I do not think it takes
long for an electrical engineer to conclude that there is no possibility of
fraud in these tests.

Even the people here such as Cude cannot come up with anything. They are
scraping the bottom of the barrel when they say that three-phase
electricity is difficult to measure or there might be a hidden wire under
the insulation, forgetting that the researchers have to strip off the
insulation to measure voltage. Since those of the best arguments they can
come up with, they are finished. Cude came dangerously close to admitting
the COP might be over 1. Admitting that would the end for him. He can never
say that any test of cold fusion anywhere ever produced evidence of heat
over unity.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:On deception


Jed wrote: I do not think it takes
long for an electrical engineer to conclude that there is no possibility of
fraud in these tests.

I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would sign 
such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread Terry Blanton

Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:

 Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
 conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

 I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would
 sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread Alain Sepeda

With corp experience, I can confirm, but the question is only if the boss
agree with my opinion, I can give it... and if it is unsure I protect my
private parts safe.

so a positive report mean that the bos was ok, that the engineer was ok or
menaces to be fired.
that the boss was ok mean that either he have interest in saying yes
(funding, politics) which is unthinkable for LENR, or that he have been
absolutely convinced it works after torturing 3 engineers with 380V
tri-phase confirming it works, and he hope to be a hero when it succeed and
feel absolutely no risk of error...

so it is an evidence stronger than the engineer are sure. this mean that
the engineers under torture confirm their report, and the boss see no risk
of being wrong.

maybe I exaggerate a little, because torturing at 50V monophase is enough
for corporate engineer...


2013/5/31 Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de


 Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
 conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

 I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would
 sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

2013-05-31 Thread David L Babcock


I join Terry and Jed on this.  EE, 1962.
I might hesitate, in view of the subversion of some holy pronouncements 
of the physics establishment, but sign I would.



Ol' Bab



On 5/31/2013 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:

Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would
sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread ChemE Stewart

Terry,

I won't hold that degree against you, I have hired a bunch of GA Tech
Engineers... I agree with Jed also.  Sometimes I wonder if physicists ought
to be required to have an undergrad degree in engineering.  Lots of
electromagnetic and thermodynamic stuff going on when you are dealing with
the vacuuum.

Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com

On Friday, May 31, 2013, Terry Blanton wrote:

 Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
 registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
 consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali 
 yamaliyam...@yahoo.dejavascript:;
 wrote:
 
  Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
  conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.
 
  I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would
  sign such a statement.

RE: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread Charles Francis

A weakness regarding the recent Ecat paper by Levi et al. is the apparent
absence of an EE. In a future test they would ideally include a power
engineer along with thermal image and data logging specialists.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 31 May 2013 18:46
To: Yamali Yamali
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:On deception

Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a registered
professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE consulting engineers
and I agree with Jed.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de
wrote:

 Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to 
 conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

 I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who 
 would sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

For the record: Jed wrote: 


Whether these people are experts or not I'm sure the Association reviewed
their work carefully before issuing a statement. I do not think it takes
long for an electrical engineer to conclude that there is no possibility of
fraud in these tests.

You've read their report, Terry, and you are an EE. And you would, based on 
what you read in the report and what Hartman and Essen said in interviews 
afterwards, sign a statement to the effect that there is no possibility of 
fraud in these tests??? Why would you do that? We know practically nothing 
about the input measurement apart from the fact that they used a PCE830 and 
that Hartman claims he lifted the controller from the table and couldn't see 
any extra cables. Is that enough for you?




 Von: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
An: Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de 
CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 18:46 Freitag, 31.Mai 2013
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:On deception
 

Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:

 Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
 conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

 I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would
 sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

2013-05-31 Thread Kevin O'Malley

I'd like to throw in as the 4th EE, graduated from University of California
Santa Barbara 1998.  I would sign.  But if I were there and had the
wherewithal, I would have insisted on bringing in our own generator to
provide the input power.


On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.comwrote:

 I join Terry and Jed on this.  EE, 1962.
 I might hesitate, in view of the subversion of some holy pronouncements of
 the physics establishment, but sign I would.


 Ol' Bab



 On 5/31/2013 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

 Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
 registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
 consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de
 wrote:

 Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
 conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

 I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would
 sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread Joshua Cude

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:



 Even the people here such as Cude cannot come up with anything. They are
 scraping the bottom of the barrel when they say that three-phase
 electricity is difficult to measure or there might be a hidden wire under
 the insulation, forgetting that the researchers have to strip off the
 insulation to measure voltage.




No one knew how Keely did his tricks either, until he died and they ripped
up his workshop.


And I'm not convinced those guys stripped any wires. It's far from clear it
wasn't Rossi or his delegate who didn't do all the setup. He certainly did
it in the December run. And to hear Essen, the Swedes were pretty much
hands off. All Hartman did was look around and take pictures.



  Cude came dangerously close to admitting the COP might be over 1.


You just miss the point. I was disputing the idea that it was ready for
commercialization even if the claim were true, and so the idea that his
power supply is for industrial purposes is nonsense.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:


 You've read their report, Terry, and you are an EE. And you would, based
 on what you read in the report and what Hartman and Essen said in
 interviews afterwards, sign a statement to the effect that there is no
 possibility of fraud in these tests???


If this were something like a court case and an EE was asked to testify, I
think it would be reasonable for him to say:

Based on what I have seen here I cannot think of any way in which fraud
could be committed. The methods of deception that have been suggested by
others would not work in my opinion.

That's not to say fraud or error are absolutely ruled out under any
circumstances. In real life you can never say that. As I said, in principle
there could be an error in Ohm law or the laws of thermodynamics. Also,
testimony of this nature is always to the best of my knowledge, which is
an escape clause.

It may be that an EE would want to clarify some details with the authors
before testifying to that effect. That would be reasonable.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:On deception

Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

And I'm not convinced those guys stripped any wires.


How does one measure voltage without stripping wires?



 It's far from clear it wasn't Rossi or his delegate who didn't do all the
 setup.


Okay, so you are saying they attached the voltage probe to the bare wire
without looking at the wire. With their eyes closed, perhaps?

I myself am afraid of electricity. So I would never attach a probe to a
wire with my eyes closed. I think electricians and EEs would all agree with
me on this. You want to look at what you are doing in these situations.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread Joshua Cude

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 And I'm not convinced those guys stripped any wires.


 How does one measure voltage without stripping wires?



Watch the cheese video. The ends of the wires that the magician wants you
to measure are already exposed. Clever, huh.







  It's far from clear it wasn't Rossi or his delegate who didn't do all
 the setup.


 Okay, so you are saying they attached the voltage probe to the bare wire
 without looking at the wire. With their eyes closed, perhaps?


No, they measured the voltage at the connection points on the 830, or some
other previously prepared monitoring points.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

Watch the cheese video. The ends of the wires that the magician wants you
 to measure are already exposed. Clever, huh.


Too clever by half. This would not begin to fool any scientist, electrician
or EE on God's Green Earth. There has not been an electrician since Edison
who would not check all the wires, and who might fall for this.


No, they measured the voltage at the connection points on the 830, or some
 other previously prepared monitoring points.


Quoting from the report:

As in the previous test, the LCD display of the electrical power meter
(PCE-830) was
continually filmed by a video camera. The clamp ammeters were connected
upstream from the
control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed,
and to produce a nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the
measurements themselves.

As noted, they made a video showing every minute of both tests. Rossi could
not have touched the equipment or the instruments.

This is proof that the people doing the tests are not naive idiots who
trust Rossi, and that they took reasonable precautions against obvious
tricks such as hidden wires. Additional messages from the authors confirm
that they looked for things like a DC component in the electricity and they
checked the equipment stand to sure it was not charged with electricity.

There is not the slightest chance Rossi could have done anything so easy to
discover as the hidden wire under the insulation trick. If that is best
you can come up with, you have scrapped the bottom of the barrel and come
up with nothing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:On deception

So you're not basing the confidence that an EE would find fraud impossible not 
on the report or on what Hartman and Essen said afterwards but primarily on an 
idealized version of what you believe they should have done to exclude fraud. 
Or did they say anywhere in the paper that they actually cut the wires 
themselves? I couldn't find anything about it.


 As noted, they made a video showing every minute of both tests. Rossi could 
 not have touched the equipment or the instruments.

I found that video setup extremely odd. Setting up a camera would be ok, but 
it'd have to have been on a wider angle and from a greater distance. As it was, 
the camera only captured a small area around the PCE830 and they used it to 
eyeball the measurements instead of pulling the data from the PCE830s data 
logging, which is not only odd but insanely pedestrian and inconvenient. So why 
would they do it that way? Of course, the setup cuts both ways. It keeps Rossi 
from manipulating the PCE830 once it is running - but it also keeps the testers 
from bringing up the wave analyzer on the display. We should ask Essen - but I 
wouldn't be surprised if the camera thing wasn't their idea at all but Rossi's 
requirement in order to make sure that they wouldn't investigate his 
industrial secret waveform and still give them a (crude, inconvenient and 
inaccurate) way to estimate the input power measurements over time.




 Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 20:22 Freitag, 31.Mai 2013
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:On deception
 


Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:


Watch the cheese video. The ends of the wires that the magician wants you to 
measure are already exposed. Clever, huh.

Too clever by half. This would not begin to fool any scientist, electrician or 
EE on God's Green Earth. There has not been an electrician since Edison who 
would not check all the wires, and who might fall for this.


No, they measured the voltage at the connection points on the 830, or some 
other previously prepared monitoring points. 
Quoting from the report:

As in the previous test, the LCD display of the electrical power meter 
(PCE-830) was 
continually filmed by a video camera. The clamp ammeters were connected 
upstream from the 
control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to 
produce a nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements 
themselves.


As noted, they made a video showing every minute of both tests. Rossi could not 
have touched the equipment or the instruments.

This is proof that the people doing the tests are not naive idiots who trust 
Rossi, and that they took reasonable precautions against obvious tricks such as 
hidden wires. Additional messages from the authors confirm that they looked for 
things like a DC component in the electricity and they checked the equipment 
stand to sure it was not charged with electricity.

There is not the slightest chance Rossi could have done anything so easy to 
discover as the hidden wire under the insulation trick. If that is best you 
can come up with, you have scrapped the bottom of the barrel and come up with 
nothing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[This was sent to Yamali Yamali instead of Vortex. He should adjust his 
e-mail.]


Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de mailto:yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:

   Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer
   to conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

   I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who
   would sign such a statement.


The Elforsk web page announcement is better than a signed statement, in 
my opinion. So was EPRI's statement. A conclusion issued by an 
organization carries more weight than statement signed by one EE.


Along the same lines, when the CEO of National Instruments gave a 20 
minute video recorded presentation about cold fusion in front of 
thousands of employees, that was a bigger commitment and more convincing 
that brief statement from a corporate executive that yes, we have 
consulted with Rossi and others. Anyone who still claims the NI has no 
interest in cold fusion is nuts.


Also, no EE here or anywhere else has presented a serious description of 
how this might be fraud. Diagrams showing hidden wires and claims that 
you can add a circuit to an electronic device that magically makes 900 W 
of electricity look like 300 W are not serious. As David Roberson points 
out, an EE who actually believes such things will put together an 
electronic SPICE model to demonstrate the claim.


Cude has waved his hands and said there might be a method of deception 
that he has not thought of yet. As I have often pointed out, such 
assertions cannot be tested or falsified. There might be an error in 
Ohm's law we have not yet discovered, but until you specify what that 
error actually is, you have no basis for arguing that law may be wrong.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:On deception


[Also sent to Y.Y.]

I wrote:

   . . . Rossi's requirement in order to make sure that they
   wouldn't investigate his industrial secret waveform . . .


   No, it was their idea. Also their camera and their video recording.
   Unless Rossi got a copy this would not help him prevent them from
   investigating things when he was not there.


Let me add that if they did peek at the waveform when Rossi was absent, 
I do not think they would be so stupid as to hand over a copy of the 
video recording to him.


I'm making some basic assumptions about how sane people act. I do not 
think a person would make an incriminating video of himself and then 
hand over a copy to the victim. I do not think that an electrician or a 
scientist would allow someone else to make the connections to a 
voltmeter without ever looking at the connections to confirm they are right.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:On deception


[Sent to Y.Y. This is not important. Sorry to be so obsessive.]

Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de mailto:yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:

   So you're not basing the confidence that an EE would find fraud
   impossible not on the report or on what Hartman and Essen said
   afterwards but primarily on an idealized version of what you believe
   they should have done to exclude fraud.


No, I am basing it on what they said in the report, and also afterwards 
when they described lifting up the control box to confirm it does not 
hold a battery, and checking the equipment stand to be sure it is not 
charged.


Also I'm not talking about an idealized version of a scientist or an 
electrician. I'm talking about every scientist electrician who has ever 
lived after Edison. The kinds of tricks described by Cude with two wires 
under the insulation could not fool any of them. Or me, for that matter.


The other tricks described by Cude a such as using a diode to make 900 W 
of electricity look like 300 W are impossible.



   Or did they say anywhere in the paper that they actually cut the
   wires themselves? I couldn't find anything about it.


It would not make any difference who cuts the wires. As long as they 
have eyes and can see where the wires go they can confirm this trick is 
not being used.


What are you imagining? Do you suppose they handed the voltage probes to 
Rossi, turned their backs and said: Please attach this wherever you 
like. We promise we will not look. Seriously, does that sound 
plausible? Have you ever met a scientist or electrician who would do that?



   . . . but I wouldn't be surprised if the camera thing wasn't their
   idea at all but Rossi's requirement in order to make sure that they
   wouldn't investigate his industrial secret waveform . . .


No, it was their idea. Also their camera and their video recording. 
Unless Rossi got a copy this would not help him prevent them from 
investigating things when he was not there.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

2013-05-31 Thread Robert Lynn

Another EE here (plus mechanical undergrad).  On balance I think Rossi has
something, but I have been disappointed by too many of his slap-dash demos
over the last two years to put my reputation on the line in backing him.
 And there are some potentially big holes in the electrical power delivery
(that have been discussed to death here).  I can't give him the benefit of
the doubt give his dubious history, and It would need a more rigorously
instrumented test by people who are more aggressively skeptical than in his
tests to date for me to give unequivocal support.


On 31 May 2013 18:51, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'd like to throw in as the 4th EE, graduated from University of
 California Santa Barbara 1998.  I would sign.  But if I were there and had
 the wherewithal, I would have insisted on bringing in our own generator to
 provide the input power.


 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM, David L Babcock 
 ol...@rochester.rr.comwrote:

 I join Terry and Jed on this.  EE, 1962.
 I might hesitate, in view of the subversion of some holy pronouncements
 of the physics establishment, but sign I would.


 Ol' Bab



 On 5/31/2013 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

 Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
 registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
 consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de
 wrote:

 Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
 conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

 I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who
 would
 sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread Mark Gibbs

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Cude has waved his hands and said there might be a method of deception
 that he has not thought of yet. As I have often pointed out, such
 assertions cannot be tested or falsified. There might be an error in Ohm's
 law we have not yet discovered, but until you specify what that error
 actually is, you have no basis for arguing that law may be wrong.


Ah, so it's OK to argue that Cude is, in effect, hand-waving away Ohm's law
and that's indefensible because that law is accepted but it's not OK to
argue that Carat's dismissal of conventional physics as being wrong about
LENR is also hand waving?

[m]

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread Axil Axil

LENR complies with all know physical laws. The problem is that few
scientists have a background in this new branch of science. Nanoplasmonics
produces about 2000 papers a year; the people that can produce that number
of papers are estimated to be no more than 1000 worldwide.





Please attend the two upcoming LENR events this summer, one in July and one
in August. These visits will either confirm or undermine the LENR
technology as shown by DGT.





The hits on your web site will climb through the roof.





I will be interested in reading your comprehensive accounts of the goings
on at these two events.





Don’t get your information second hand. Your unbiased journalistic
credibility needs first hand witness to these amazing and historic events.





Your eyewitness accounts will be told and retold down through history unto
the latest generation.





Wouldn’t you have liked to record the events unfolding in Independence Hall
on July 4 1776, or the first flight of the airplane?  Well this opportunity
is bigger yet.




Don't leave this golden momentous opportunity solely to Sterling D. Allan
of Pure Energy Systems. The more and varied perspectives that come out of
this historic period, the better that history will be served.

§








On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:


 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Cude has waved his hands and said there might be a method of deception
 that he has not thought of yet. As I have often pointed out, such
 assertions cannot be tested or falsified. There might be an error in Ohm's
 law we have not yet discovered, but until you specify what that error
 actually is, you have no basis for arguing that law may be wrong.


 Ah, so it's OK to argue that Cude is, in effect, hand-waving away Ohm's
 law and that's indefensible because that law is accepted but it's not OK to
 argue that Carat's dismissal of conventional physics as being wrong about
 LENR is also hand waving?

 [m]

Re: [Vo]:On deception

Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:


 Cude has waved his hands and said there might be a method of deception
 that he has not thought of yet. As I have often pointed out, such
 assertions cannot be tested or falsified. There might be an error in Ohm's
 law we have not yet discovered, but until you specify what that error
 actually is, you have no basis for arguing that law may be wrong.


 Ah, so it's OK to argue that Cude is, in effect, hand-waving away Ohm's
 law and that's indefensible because that law is accepted but it's not OK to
 argue that Carat's dismissal of conventional physics as being wrong about
 LENR is also hand waving?


Yes, this is okay. We are talking about two fundamentally different things:
actions taken by engineers and laws of nature.

Let's go over this carefully, because this is an important distinction, and
Cude has often repeated this mistake.

First of all, Carat is not dismissing laws of nature. She is only saying
that cold fusion cannot be explained by theory, but a theory is not
required to explain an anomaly before you accept that it is true.

Cude claims there may be a method by which an engineer can cause a reactor
to consume 900 W yet the instruments only show 300 W. However, he says he
cannot specify what that method is. Therefore, his assertion cannot be
tested or falsified, so it is not scientific. Anything that an engineer can
do is known to science, by definition. It is in the textbooks. It can be
simulated with an electronic SPICE program (an electronic textbook).

Now let us compare that to a claim made by McKubre that he observes excess
heat for reasons he does not fully understand. He understand the control
parameters, he sees that it correlates with helium at the same ratio as
plasma fusion does, but he has no theory. He knows it cannot be chemical,
because there are no chemical changes and it exceeds the limits of
chemistry by a factor of 10,000, but he cannot prove it is nuclear.

This claim is based entirely on calorimetry, which is based on 18th and
19th century instruments and physics. These instruments and physics are
fully described in the textbooks, and therefore we can be certain that
McKubre's claim is correct.

The cause of this heat -- the nuclear theory -- is a mystery. McKubre does
not have to supply a theory before his claim is fully accepted. If he did,
the scientific method would not work because it is *always impossible* to
explain an anomaly when you first detect it, by definition. It would not be
an anomaly if you could explain it. If science rejects anomalies, progress
will cease.

It may remain impossible to explain the anomaly for decades, as it has with
high temperature superconductivity. It may take hundreds of years as it did
with the heat and light from the sun. However long it takes, science is
never allowed to dismiss the anomaly.

The only theory McKubre needs to reference are the laws of thermodynamics.
As long as we remain  certain these laws are right, we must accept that his
results are correct, and the anomaly is real. Conversely, the only way to
prove that McKubre, Fleischmann and the others are wrong would be to show
an error in the laws of thermodynamics.

As long as the instruments and techniques used in an experiment are known
to be correct, and listed in the textbooks as part of generally accepted
scientific technique, the results must be accepted as valid.


To summarize it is ALWAYS okay to say:

The experiments prove that nature is doing something we do not understand
with present-day theory (an anomaly). We can look at the experiments and
confirm this is a real anomaly. Or we can find a prosaic explanation, and
dismiss it. Science begins with an anomaly.

It is NEVER okay to say:

An engineer (Rossi) is doing something to make a fake test I do not
understand and cannot describe, but I am sure he is doing it. This is empty
speculation. It cannot be tested or falsified so it is not scientific. Any
act that a person can do to make a fake test must be described by the
textbooks and by SPICE. If it is not in the textbooks, that makes it a
genuine anomaly. In other words, if Rossi has discovered a way to make a
power meter report 900 W as 300 W, but SPICE cannot simulate that method,
that makes it an important new discovery that the instrument makers and EEs
must investigate.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread Edmund Storms

Mark, you quoted Siegel as saying that CF violated physics because it  
did not act like hot fusion. Carat simply pointed out that CF was not  
like hot fusion and this comparison was not valid. She simply made a  
statement of belief, not a proof.  Siegel also made a statement of  
belief, not a proof or fact.  If you want facts, I would be glad to  
supply them, but don't complain about Ruby when she simply points out  
that CF is not like hot fusion. Such a statement is no more hand  
waving than was the statement by Siegel. Actually, your description of  
Carat as hand waving simply revealed that you agree with Siegel.


Ed Storms


On May 31, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:



On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  
jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude has waved his hands and said there might be a method of  
deception that he has not thought of yet. As I have often pointed  
out, such assertions cannot be tested or falsified. There might be  
an error in Ohm's law we have not yet discovered, but until you  
specify what that error actually is, you have no basis for arguing  
that law may be wrong.


Ah, so it's OK to argue that Cude is, in effect, hand-waving away  
Ohm's law and that's indefensible because that law is accepted but  
it's not OK to argue that Carat's dismissal of conventional physics  
as being wrong about LENR is also hand waving?


[m]

RE: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

2013-05-31 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Robert,

Dave Roberson has challenged anyone to do a spice model RE: at least one of
the concerns over DC input power.  Do you know how to use Spice, and would
you be willing to try to duplicate his model in order to determine if its
valid, and if not, why?

-Mark

 

From: Robert Lynn [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 1:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

 

Another EE here (plus mechanical undergrad).  On balance I think Rossi has
something, but I have been disappointed by too many of his slap-dash demos
over the last two years to put my reputation on the line in backing him.
And there are some potentially big holes in the electrical power delivery
(that have been discussed to death here).  I can't give him the benefit of
the doubt give his dubious history, and It would need a more rigorously
instrumented test by people who are more aggressively skeptical than in his
tests to date for me to give unequivocal support.

 

On 31 May 2013 18:51, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

I'd like to throw in as the 4th EE, graduated from University of California
Santa Barbara 1998.  I would sign.  But if I were there and had the
wherewithal, I would have insisted on bringing in our own generator to
provide the input power.  

 

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com
wrote:

I join Terry and Jed on this.  EE, 1962.
I might hesitate, in view of the subversion of some holy pronouncements of
the physics establishment, but sign I would.


Ol' Bab



On 5/31/2013 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de
wrote:

Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would
sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

2013-05-31 Thread Axil Axil

What kind of credibility problems will the National instrument techs have
after the Ni show demo? What can Ni do to make that test fraud-proof?


On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'd like to throw in as the 4th EE, graduated from University of
 California Santa Barbara 1998.  I would sign.  But if I were there and had
 the wherewithal, I would have insisted on bringing in our own generator to
 provide the input power.


 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM, David L Babcock 
 ol...@rochester.rr.comwrote:

 I join Terry and Jed on this.  EE, 1962.
 I might hesitate, in view of the subversion of some holy pronouncements
 of the physics establishment, but sign I would.


 Ol' Bab



 On 5/31/2013 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

 Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
 registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
 consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de
 wrote:

 Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
 conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

 I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who
 would
 sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:On deception