Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: So, do you need help with that spice model? 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. 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 that deception on Rossi's part is far more likely than cold fusion. Most people looking at the cheese power video could not prove there was a trick from the video alone, and especially not from a paper written to describe the experiment, by people who actually believed in cheese power. But that doesn't mean they would not be nearly certain there is one. And it would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of electricity to set up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power unequivocally, if it were real. Likewise, the same could be done for the ecat. But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time, when close associates choose the instruments which are completely inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input timing is determined from a video tape, when the COP just happens to equal the reciprocal of the duty cycle, when the power supply box is off-limits, and the power measurements are restricted, and when the claim is as unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious. The remainder of your discussion is nothing more than using words to avoid the issue. They are a direct response to your arguments or requests. But you have no counter to them, so you just repeat what you said before. You wrote a large number of unsubstantiated and untrue statements which I want to take apart one by one. Yea, sure. But you don't respond to any of them. Instead you just stomp your feet and repeat yourself. As long as you ignore my responses, I'll keep repeating them. You have a double standard. Answer for that.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case The avoidance here is from the true believers who insist that any alternative explanation must described in detail, whereas they refuse to explain the thermodynamics of a power density 100 times that of uranium in a fission reactor without melting, or how nuclear reactions can produce that much heat and no radiation, etc.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing to discuss the issues. I've written a lot of words, so obviously I'm willing to discuss. I'm kind of outnumbered here, so it's not possible to respond to everything promptly. I'm sorry if you felt neglected in the last round, but Rothwell spewed forth so much nonsense, that was nevertheless more comprehensible than your non-explanation explanations (which are really just assertions), that it took higher priority. As for the weekend, well, I do unfortunately have a life. I insisted to others who are part of it that there were more people than usual wrong on the internet, and it was really important that I straighten them out, but it was my anniversary, and my wife was having none of it. But on our little weekend, I asked everyone who would listen if they thought adding heat was a logical way to regulate positive thermal feedback, and everyone from the concierge to the waiter to the lifeguard at the pool said that while it might be possible in some contrived situation, it's the stupidest thing they ever heard of. Of course, I had to explain that it was like using an electric space heater to regulate the output of a fireplace. Only the cab driver hesitated, and said he'd get back to me after he checked with his dispatcher -- I'm still waiting. We can show that every one of his positions is nothing more than speculation with absolutely no substantiation. With only a paper to go on describing an experiment that we cannot test, that's true of every position, and in particular the position that it involves cold fusion. There are alternative explanations, and to the smart people, cold fusion is the least likely. You have made no argument to change that view. He refuses to acknowledge errors I've acknowledged several errors that true believers have made. that he continues to present as fact when he knows that they have no basis. I have presented as fact only things that are facts. Like the fact that they said they used 3-phase power. The idea that the purpose of the 3-phase is to obfuscate and make deception easier is, I have admitted, speculation, just as is the idea that there's any cold fusion going on. He fails to understand how heat can be used to control the ECAT even though I have attempted to explain it to him on numerous occasions. No. You really haven't. You have only said that you could explain it. I have asked for your proposed temperature dependence of the reaction rate and heat loss, and you haven't supplied it. He fails to understand how the DC component … I have made no specific argument about dc. You are arguing with someone else. I have said that the meter they use is inadequate because it has a limited frequency range, and clampons measure only net ac current. Therefore power at a frequency outside the range of the meter would not be detected, or concealed conductors could produce zero net current through a clampon, while nevertheless delivering power to the load, as in cheese power. I'm no EE, but if you want to exclude tricks, you should measure the input in detail. There is no indication the connections were removed and checked carefully, or of any use of a scope. That makes it suspicious. One method of deception has been identified. I hardly think it's the only one, given the confusing wiring, and the even more confusing description of the wiring and the measurements. We can't even agree on where the measurements were made in some instances. I didn't follow the dc discussion you're talking about, and I don't follow what you're saying about it. But one thing that I've not seen excluded (in addition to the cheese power) is that the 3 power lines are all floating on a dc level because of tampering with the line itself. The clampons would not detect that, and neither would the interline voltage measurements, which is all that is reported. But if there's a neutral line in to the box, power can be generated from the dc component above that indicated by the meter. Hartman says he considered a dc bias of all the input lines, but that it would require a return line, and he looked for one from the ecat. If that's what Essen was referring to as excluding dc, then I'm not buying it. Because there was no measurement of the voltage or current on the lines to the ecat during the live run in March, so that says nothing. The voltage measurement was on the input, and there is no mention that a neutral line was not available there. So that's 2 scenarios I've proposed, and you have yet to propose a single scenario 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. So,
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their reputations on the line. I don't think it's a big risk. They can plausibly claim ignorance. In fact their ignorance is the most plausible explanation. ***No, the most plausible explanation in the light of 14,700 replications of the P-F Anomalous Heat Effect is that the effect is real and Rossi has found a way to generate it more reliably. We had this conversation about those replications, and you believe that every single one of them was an error, which has been shown to be more than 4500 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE demonstrably incorrect and impossible. No, you don't know your mathematics, because that's like saying that the chance of rolling 10 sixes out of 60 dice is (1/6)^10. It's nonsense.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Josh, back to the same type of arguments. A long list that would be exhaustive to anyone reading is not the way to sort this out. I refuse to react to this non sense. Why do you not understand my explanation as to how heat can be used in a positive feedback system as a control? It is pretty elementary to me, but then again, I design things instead of retard their introduction. So you find it educational to ask cab drivers, etc. how to handle physics problems? Now we know where you get those wild ideas. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing to discuss the issues. I've written a lot of words, so obviously I'm willing to discuss. I'm kind of outnumbered here, so it's not possible to respond to everything promptly. I'm sorry if you felt neglected in the last round, but Rothwell spewed forth so much nonsense, that was nevertheless more comprehensible than your non-explanation explanations (which are really just assertions), that it took higher priority. As for the weekend, well, I do unfortunately have a life. I insisted to others who are part of it that there were more people than usual wrong on the internet, and it was really important that I straighten them out, but it was my anniversary, and my wife was having none of it. But on our little weekend, I asked everyone who would listen if they thought adding heat was a logical way to regulate positive thermal feedback, and everyone from the concierge to the waiter to the lifeguard at the pool said that while it might be possible in some contrived situation, it's the stupidest thing they ever heard of. Of course, I had to explain that it was like using an electric space heater to regulate the output of a fireplace. Only the cab driver hesitated, and said he'd get back to me after he checked with his dispatcher -- I'm still waiting. We can show that every one of his positions is nothing more than speculation with absolutely no substantiation. With only a paper to go on describing an experiment that we cannot test, that's true of every position, and in particular the position that it involves cold fusion. There are alternative explanations, and to the smart people, cold fusion is the least likely. You have made no argument to change that view. He refuses to acknowledge errors I've acknowledged several errors that true believers have made. that he continues to present as fact when he knows that they have no basis. I have presented as fact only things that are facts. Like the fact that they said they used 3-phase power. The idea that the purpose of the 3-phase is to obfuscate and make deception easier is, I have admitted, speculation, just as is the idea that there's any cold fusion going on. He fails to understand how heat can be used to control the ECAT even though I have attempted to explain it to him on numerous occasions. No. You really haven't. You have only said that you could explain it. I have asked for your proposed temperature dependence of the reaction rate and heat loss, and you haven't supplied it. He fails to understand how the DC component … I have made no specific argument about dc. You are arguing with someone else. I have said that the meter they use is inadequate because it has a limited frequency range, and clampons measure only net ac current. Therefore power at a frequency outside the range of the meter would not be detected, or concealed conductors could produce zero net current through a clampon, while nevertheless delivering power to the load, as in cheese power. I'm no EE, but if you want to exclude tricks, you should measure the input in detail. There is no indication the connections were removed and checked carefully, or of any use of a scope. That makes it suspicious. One method of deception has been identified. I hardly think it's the only one, given the confusing wiring, and the even more confusing description of the wiring and the measurements. We can't even agree on where the measurements were made in some instances. I didn't follow the dc discussion you're talking about, and I don't follow what you're saying about it. But one thing that I've not seen excluded (in addition to the cheese power) is that the 3 power lines are all floating on a dc level because of tampering with the line itself. The clampons would not detect that, and neither would the interline voltage measurements, which is all that is reported. But if there's a neutral line in to the box, power can be generated from the dc component above that indicated by the meter. Hartman says he considered a dc bias of all the input lines, but that it would require a return
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case The avoidance here is from the true believers who insist that any alternative explanation must described in detail, whereas they refuse to explain the thermodynamics of a power density 100 times that of uranium in a fission reactor without melting, or how nuclear reactions can produce that much heat and no radiation, etc. It is not clear to me that CF works best in a completely solid environment. Melting may accelerate the effect, but if the melting occurs just beneath the surface like magma, pressure will build and volcanic like explosions will occur producing the pits and craters observed on pd cathodes. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
*…whereas they refuse to explain the thermodynamics of a power density 100 times that of uranium in a fission reactor without melting,…* The fission reactor is extremely inefficient in its use of nuclear fuel. The limiting factor in the nuclear fuel utilization is the zirconium cladding that enclosed the fuel pellet. This pellet is exposed to extreme neutron radiation and must retain the ultra-high gas (xenon) pressures that the fission reaction produces. This fuel rod is removed from the fission reactor with a large amount of fissile isotopes remaining in order to protect the structural integrity of the pellet’s structure. On the other hand, the LENR process can utilize a wide range of elements at near perfect efficiency in an iterative reaction where each reaction product in the feedstock of the next iterative cascade reaction. One atom may be used 20 times in a LENR reaction before it is spent. I would estimate that the efficiency estimation of 100 times is an underestimation of the effective power density efficiency difference derived from these respective feedstocks. Explaining the QM reasons for why LENR performs its wonders is a waste of time and effort for people with a disposition like Cude. It is like explaining how a rocket works to a muleskinner. On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case The avoidance here is from the true believers who insist that any alternative explanation must described in detail, whereas they refuse to explain the thermodynamics of a power density 100 times that of uranium in a fission reactor without melting, or how nuclear reactions can produce that much heat and no radiation, etc. It is not clear to me that CF works best in a completely solid environment. Melting may accelerate the effect, but if the melting occurs just beneath the surface like magma, pressure will build and volcanic like explosions will occur producing the pits and craters observed on pd cathodes. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: It is not clear to me that CF works best in a completely solid environment. Melting may accelerate the effect, but if the melting occurs just beneath the surface like magma, pressure will build and volcanic like explosions will occur producing the pits and craters observed on pd cathodes. ***Sounds similar to my tree landslide analogy. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77066.html Kevin O'Malleyhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Kevin+O%27Malley%22Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:22:36 -0800http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130222 We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its a bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to escape to the surface? ***It is possible it's a bulk effect but the evidence is only seen at the surface. Like a landslide pushing a hundred trees into a river, but the forces of the river at that point are strong enough to pull the trees downstream until they cause a backup at the lower energy part of the system. The causal event took place upstream (or, inside the bulk) but the observed evidence is downstream (at the surface).
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: It is like explaining how a rocket works to a muleskinner. Note, however that the astronomer Milton Humason began his career as a muleskinner during the construction of the Mt. Wilson observatory. Then he became the janitor in 1917. Then in 1919 he was promoted to staff and become an expert in measuring redshifts. http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/online_edition/1929Cosmic/mount.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
I confirms the opinion control technology. I try to control it too with counter-measure. Hardest point is staying calm ;-) Most calm people, like Jed or ed, do a great job in controlling broadcasted lies in some thread. people have to see that the pretended skeptics are in fact conspiracy theorist of the worst species. Like similar conspiracy theorist they sometime raise interesting points, mostly useless, yet true, and otherwise mostly BS and FUD. anyway, lie, lie, there will always be something that remain. (french proverb) 2013/6/2 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case presented by the derided through justly committed believer, but to prejudice the less technically conversant members of the general public who might be evaluating the debate. The obstructionist realizes that neither his farfetched pejorative case nor his propaganda of recrimination is wasted on the knowledgeable LENR expert. His goal is to undercut any spark of belief among the common folk before it is rightly turns into a conflagration of LENR enthusiasm. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: So, do you need help with that spice model? The remainder of your discussion is nothing more than using words to avoid the issue. It would take you less time to perform the spice experiment than to write a million words that prove nothing. You wrote a large number of unsubstantiated and untrue statements which I want to take apart one by one. It takes far too much time and is frankly boring to the other members of vortex to respond with the volume of material needed to rebut each one. That is why I ask you to concentrate upon one of your choice. Is that asking too much? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Bring on your proof that what I have pointed out is not true. Take a few moments to show how DC flowing into the control box due to its internal rectification changes the power delivered to it. 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. 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 that deception on Rossi's part is far more likely than cold fusion. Most people looking at the cheese power video could not prove there was a trick from the video alone, and especially not from a paper written to describe the experiment, by people who actually believed in cheese power. But that doesn't mean they would not be nearly certain there is one. And it would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of electricity to set up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power unequivocally, if it were real. Likewise, the same could be done for the ecat. But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time, when close associates choose the instruments which are completely inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input timing is determined from a video tape, when the COP just happens to equal the reciprocal of the duty cycle, when the power supply box is off-limits, and the power measurements are restricted, and when the claim is as unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious. You will fail miserably I assure you! You love to make unsupported statements and then fail to do any of the simple tests required to clear up your misunderstanding. I have waited a long time for you or Andrew or Duncan to make that spice model that will demonstrate that what I say is accurate. I will be happy to help you set up a model that will take perhaps 15 minutes of your time to run. If you do not know how to makes such a model then you should remove yourself from this discussion since that would demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic EE knowledge. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: people have to see that the pretended skeptics are in fact conspiracy theorist of the worst species. I agree. Plus they judge everything by personality and their own assumptions, and they see only one side to a personality. They point to Rossi's odd behavior and his dodgy business, but they ignore the fact that he works 12 hours a day and he has invested large sums of his own money. (As Jones Beene pointed out, this is a matter of public record.) You cannot square this behavior with the con-man hypothesis. Con men do not spend years making and testing hundreds of reactors. Mind you, Rossi may well be a con-man in the same sense that Edison and Jobs were. They were dodgy people You Would Not Want to Deal With. Jobs got his start stealing from the phone company and his partner Woz. People who invested with Edison were often fleeced and usually furious. His method was to gather huge sums of money for a given purpose and then splurge on whatever instruments he felt like, keeping no records and paying no bills he could get away with ignoring. When one investor sent a forensic accountant to find out where the last draft of a hundred thousand dollars had vanished, Edison greeted the accountant saying: It is about time you got here. Did you bring more money? We're running out again. He told the investor to stop worrying about how much it was costing because it would pay off many more times than that. He was right. Still Edison did squander something like $10 million on various hare-brained schemes, which was a lot of money back than. He was not a safe investment for the faint-hearted. I have no doubt that if Dr. Alessio Guglielmi, Yugo, Cude or Park had been alive in 1879 they would have condemned Edison as fraud upon the public a disgrace, who takes up backwards and a failure masquerading as success. I know they would, because those are quotes from distinguished professors and other self-appointed experts at that time. Such people have been common in every era. They meet every invention and new idea with same tired set of objections, conspiracy theories and ad hominem arguments. Benjamin Franklin, one of the greatest scientists of all times and an acute observer of human nature, described these people to a T. anyway, lie, lie, there will always be something that remain. (french proverb) In English that would be throw enough mud and something will stick. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Throw+dirt+enough,+and+some+will+stick - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
I meant to write that Edison was called a disgrace, who takes *us*backwards. Us meaning people working on electrical engineering and incandescent lighting. As I recall, one of Edison's commercial rivals said that. You will find similar quotes from Rossi's jealous rivals in cold fusion. That was from the biography A Streak of Luck. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
In reply to Robert Lynn's message of Fri, 31 May 2013 11:44:44 +0100: Hi, [snip] Killing off opposing views like Abd, Andrew and others does not improve the quality of the discourse. I like that imagination, wild ideas and hope have free rein here, but I also think it is essential to temper that with dissenting views to get to the heart of problems. I agree. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case presented by the derided through justly committed believer, but to prejudice the less technically conversant members of the general public who might be evaluating the debate. The obstructionist realizes that neither his farfetched pejorative case nor his propaganda of recrimination is wasted on the knowledgeable LENR expert. His goal is to undercut any spark of belief among the common folk before it is rightly turns into a conflagration of LENR enthusiasm. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: So, do you need help with that spice model? The remainder of your discussion is nothing more than using words to avoid the issue. It would take you less time to perform the spice experiment than to write a million words that prove nothing. You wrote a large number of unsubstantiated and untrue statements which I want to take apart one by one. It takes far too much time and is frankly boring to the other members of vortex to respond with the volume of material needed to rebut each one. That is why I ask you to concentrate upon one of your choice. Is that asking too much? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Bring on your proof that what I have pointed out is not true. Take a few moments to show how DC flowing into the control box due to its internal rectification changes the power delivered to it. 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. 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 that deception on Rossi's part is far more likely than cold fusion. Most people looking at the cheese power video could not prove there was a trick from the video alone, and especially not from a paper written to describe the experiment, by people who actually believed in cheese power. But that doesn't mean they would not be nearly certain there is one. And it would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of electricity to set up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power unequivocally, if it were real. Likewise, the same could be done for the ecat. But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time, when close associates choose the instruments which are completely inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input timing is determined from a video tape, when the COP just happens to equal the reciprocal of the duty cycle, when the power supply box is off-limits, and the power measurements are restricted, and when the claim is as unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious. You will fail miserably I assure you! You love to make unsupported statements and then fail to do any of the simple tests required to clear up your misunderstanding. I have waited a long time for you or Andrew or Duncan to make that spice model that will demonstrate that what I say is accurate. I will be happy to help you set up a model that will take perhaps 15 minutes of your time to run. If you do not know how to makes such a model then you should remove yourself from this discussion since that would demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic EE knowledge. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I thought that the DC issue was put to rest. Only according to the credulous true believers. 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
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Well, that's the general strategy of group selection: Get the group on your side and go after the individual, or, failing that, after the smaller group. It isn't the human condition so much as it is the civil condition to which humanity has subjected itself. It is _very_ difficult to maintain social disciplines to contain its deleterious effects without mandating acceptance, particularly by authorities, of challenges to duel to the death in nature over matters of honor. That, of course, precludes civilization as we know it. On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case presented by the derided through justly committed believer, but to prejudice the less technically conversant members of the general public who might be evaluating the debate. The obstructionist realizes that neither his farfetched pejorative case nor his propaganda of recrimination is wasted on the knowledgeable LENR expert. His goal is to undercut any spark of belief among the common folk before it is rightly turns into a conflagration of LENR enthusiasm. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: So, do you need help with that spice model? The remainder of your discussion is nothing more than using words to avoid the issue. It would take you less time to perform the spice experiment than to write a million words that prove nothing. You wrote a large number of unsubstantiated and untrue statements which I want to take apart one by one. It takes far too much time and is frankly boring to the other members of vortex to respond with the volume of material needed to rebut each one. That is why I ask you to concentrate upon one of your choice. Is that asking too much? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Bring on your proof that what I have pointed out is not true. Take a few moments to show how DC flowing into the control box due to its internal rectification changes the power delivered to it. 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. 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 that deception on Rossi's part is far more likely than cold fusion. Most people looking at the cheese power video could not prove there was a trick from the video alone, and especially not from a paper written to describe the experiment, by people who actually believed in cheese power. But that doesn't mean they would not be nearly certain there is one. And it would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of electricity to set up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power unequivocally, if it were real. Likewise, the same could be done for the ecat. But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time, when close associates choose the instruments which are completely inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input timing is determined from a video tape, when the COP just happens to equal the reciprocal of the duty cycle, when the power supply box is off-limits, and the power measurements are restricted, and when the claim is as unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious. You will fail miserably I assure you! You love to make unsupported statements and then fail to do any of the simple tests required to clear up your misunderstanding. I have waited a long time for you or Andrew or Duncan to make that spice model that will demonstrate that what I say is accurate. I will be happy to help you set up a model that will take perhaps 15 minutes of your time to run. If you do not know how to makes such a model then you should remove yourself from this discussion since that would demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic EE knowledge. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Thu
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing to discuss the issues. We can show that every one of his positions is nothing more than speculation with absolutely no substantiation. He refuses to acknowledge errors that he continues to present as fact when he knows that they have no basis. He fails to understand how heat can be used to control the ECAT even though I have attempted to explain it to him on numerous occasions. He fails to understand how the DC component flowing through a sine wave source makes no difference to the reading of power from that source. This is true unless a DC supply is intentionally placed in series (only in the case of a scam)which has been proven to be untrue according to one or more of the scientists performing the tests. The above cases and all the other so called evidence discussed by Cude would not hold up in a court proceeding. He fails miserably in his attempt to prove anything except for what has been stated by those performing the experiment. I challenged him to construct a spice model that easily proves that his DC contentions are non sense and he hides. A simple model took less than 15 minutes to construct which verified my statements. It must be assumed that he is not qualified to make any EE related arguments or he would prove me wrong. Perhaps 15 minutes of his time is too much to ask for his education. He prefers to lack knowledge so he can continue to offer opinions that he realizes would be shown wrong. So, instead of facing the issues head on, he prefers to spill out a barrage of statements that are not true hoping that readers of this list will not expect him to prove anything. He is not being an honest skeptic, he is merely operating as a debunker of LENR and anyone that buys his arguments is being duped. LENR is far too important for our future to allow people to play games for their amusement. It is his hobby to debunk cold fusion which he has stated openly. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 11:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Well, that's the general strategy of group selection: Get the group on your side and go after the individual, or, failing that, after the smaller group. It isn't the human condition so much as it is the civil condition to which humanity has subjected itself. It is _very_ difficult to maintain social disciplines to contain its deleterious effects without mandating acceptance, particularly by authorities, of challenges to duel to the death in nature over matters of honor. That, of course, precludes civilization as we know it. On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The tactic of the obstructionist is toavoid dealing with the case presented by the derided through justly committedbeliever, but to prejudice the less technically conversant members of thegeneral public who might be evaluating the debate. The obstructionist realizes that neitherhis farfetched pejorative case nor his propaganda of recrimination is wasted onthe knowledgeable LENR expert. His goal is to undercut any spark of belief amongthe common folk before it is rightly turns into a conflagration of LENR enthusiasm. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: So, do you need help with that spice model? The remainder of your discussion is nothing more than using words to avoid the issue. It would take you less time to perform the spice experiment than to write a million words that prove nothing. You wrote a large number of unsubstantiated and untrue statements which I want to take apart one by one. It takes far too much time and is frankly boring to the other members of vortex to respond with the volume of material needed to rebut each one. That is why I ask you to concentrate upon one of your choice. Is that asking too much? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bring on your proof that what I have pointed out is not true. Take a few moments to show how DC flowing into the control box due to its internal rectification changes the power delivered to it. 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
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their reputations on the line. I don't think it's a big risk. They can plausibly claim ignorance. In fact their ignorance is the most plausible explanation. ***No, the most plausible explanation in the light of 14,700 replications of the P-F Anomalous Heat Effect is that the effect is real and Rossi has found a way to generate it more reliably. We had this conversation about those replications, and you believe that every single one of them was an error, which has been shown to be more than 4500 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE demonstrably incorrect and impossible. So, mathematically, the most plausible case is that LENR is real and this independently verified result is just the latest evidence that points in this direction.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing to discuss the issues. We can show that every one of his positions is nothing more than speculation with absolutely no substantiation. He refuses to acknowledge errors that he continues to present as fact when he knows that they have no basis. ... The above cases and all the other so called evidence discussed by Cude would not hold up in a court proceeding. So, instead of facing the issues head on, he prefers to spill out a barrage of statements that are not true hoping that readers of this list will not expect him to prove anything. ***I'm noticing a pattern. He is not being an honest skeptic, he is merely operating as a debunker of LENR ***Yup. He's simply more skillful than the average debunker. and anyone that buys his arguments is being duped. LENR is far too important for our future to allow people to play games for their amusement. It is his hobby to debunk cold fusion which he has stated openly. ***Yes, he has stated it openly. He also said he would be leaving Vortex. His word isn't worth what he would think, so Vorts will need to decide on the merits. Myself, I enjoy his Small-s skepticism when the sneering is removed, but his ability to do that seems limited. Much of that is because sometimes he's been shown to be simply wrong. And by wrong, I mean wrong by 4500 orders of magnitude, far less than impossible. Now, that's wrong. So I can see why he would need to resort to sneering and Big-s Skepticism.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I thought that the DC issue was put to rest. Only according to the credulous true believers. 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 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. It can be easily shown that there is not amount of diode trickery which can be put into the control box that will confuse the primary power measurement. I don't agree. Just because you or I can't think of diode trickery doesn't mean it's not possible. You or I can't think of any nuclear reactions to explain the results either, but that doesn't seem to convince you that it's not possible. You should keep an open mind to possibilities you have not thought of. DC input has been eliminated so that is not an issue due to direct observation by one or more of the test personnel. Except we don't know the observation, so it's not convincing. There is noting left to clarify as far as the input is concerned. Manipulation of the mains line is a far smaller perturbation than used in many similar scale scams. Concealed conductors can make the current look like it's zero, or could carry dc or high frequency power. And you also agree that duty cycle operation is obvious by output waveform picture review. No. I disagreed with that at least 3 times. Maybe you missed them. I don't see your problem here. Yes, the modulation of the temperature is consistent with the modulation of the input, but it says nothing about the actual power level in the alleged off part of the cycle. The claim is that the ecat is sustained in the off-cycle, so the decay curve is consistent with the total power *not* going to zero. All the skeptics are claiming is that you'd get the same thing if the input drops to the same level as the level the ecat is claimed to be producing by itself during the off cycle. And that could be done using the cheese power method with a voltage divider or a variac or something. I'm not saying that's how it was done. I'm saying that the unnecessarily indirect output measurement, the unnecessarily complex input supply and the inadequate input measurement, and the blank that was run under different conditions, makes the entire operation suspicious and leaves possibilities for deception. I just don't believe someone who actually had an energy source with MJ+/g, that could produce hundreds of watts at a COP of 3, would demonstrate in this way. It could be made so much better. And so I remain skeptical. When nothing comes of this in a year, will you be a little more skeptical? The viewed duty cycle matches that stated within the report. Anyone that suggests a cheese power type scam is not looking at the evidence. It matches the frequency. Anyone who suggests the evidence proves it goes to zero in the off-cycle does not understand the evidence. Cheese power is far more likely than nickel powder with a power density 100 times that of uranium in a fission reactor, let alone than the possibility of nuclear reactions in that context. Any RF power input would cause serious disruption of the test reading with any change of position of the probes. If that is not seen, the scope would have detected it. Essen said they did not use a scope, and I'm not convinced it would affect meters that have a limited response in the 60 Hz range. It is time for the skeptics to leave this poor horse alone. Many people suspected James Ernst Worrell Keely of fraud and deception, but no one knew exactly how he did it, and his supporters dismissed the skeptics. After his death, a most elaborate and complex series of hidden devices were found below the floors and behind walls and so on. There are many more recent examples as well such as Madison Priest and Stoern and Papp and so on. This sort of thing is utterly common, but the claimed scientific revolution is rare indeed. And all of this is independent of how much you want it to be true.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I thought that the DC issue was put to rest. Only according to the credulous true believers. you want it to be true. ***Sneering. Against the rules. Joshua, I'm gonna give you a big hint to realize just how stupid it is to engage in this manner. Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their reputations on the line. They have a 6 month test coming up. They're gonna need someone who's creative and committed to rooting out fraud and magic tricks. Where do you think they'll look? Well, the first place they'll look is Vortex, to see who's been challenging the vorts with some fire-branded tested skepticism. But they will quickly overlook someone who seems dishonest enough to sabotage the results. So, do yourself a favor and get rid of the sneering. Honest skepticism is welcome.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Kevin, that doesn't look like sneering to me, more like simply Joshua's assessment of the motivations for positions that others are taking, without invective or nastiness that I can see. I am generally saddened to see the recent witch-hunt/culling of dissent/heresy in the Vort. The 'sneering' rule is being applied asymmetrically, and frankly of late it is becoming more like a doctrinal church. Killing off opposing views like Abd, Andrew and others does not improve the quality of the discourse. I like that imagination, wild ideas and hope have free rein here, but I also think it is essential to temper that with dissenting views to get to the heart of problems. On 31 May 2013 10:29, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I thought that the DC issue was put to rest. Only according to the credulous true believers. you want it to be true. ***Sneering. Against the rules. Joshua, I'm gonna give you a big hint to realize just how stupid it is to engage in this manner. Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their reputations on the line. They have a 6 month test coming up. They're gonna need someone who's creative and committed to rooting out fraud and magic tricks. Where do you think they'll look? Well, the first place they'll look is Vortex, to see who's been challenging the vorts with some fire-branded tested skepticism. But they will quickly overlook someone who seems dishonest enough to sabotage the results. So, do yourself a favor and get rid of the sneering. Honest skepticism is welcome.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Hi, On 31-5-2013 12:44, Robert Lynn wrote: I am generally saddened to see the recent witch-hunt/culling of dissent/heresy in the Vort. The 'sneering' rule is being applied asymmetrically, and frankly of late it is becoming more like a doctrinal church. Killing off opposing views like Abd, Andrew and others does not improve the quality of the discourse. I like that imagination, wild ideas and hope have free rein here, but I also think it is essential to temper that with dissenting views to get to the heart of problems. On 31 May 2013 10:29, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com mailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I thought that the DC issue was put to rest. Only according to the credulous true believers. you want it to be true. ***Sneering. Against the rules. Yes, I'm in favor of free speech with open and honest discussions, but I willingly try to avoid discussions (troll feeding) with certain people in this list who try to fight, obfuscate and flood any reasonable discussion! And having said that, couldn't it be that J.C. is an example of a false messenger who behaves in a similar way as what he is saying he is opposing? Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On May 31, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know how it might have been done. That is very healthy attitude. Many people often forget how easy it is to create illusions and how hard it is expose them if the illusionist is let to pull the strings. There is very often the situation, that not enough independent data available, but opinions must be based on a hunch. What is the best thing about this new demonstration that it excludes definitely steam based tricks from the possible repertoire. So from the beginning it was all about the feeding extra input power via hidden wires. Therefore most of the skeptics were just wrong, because they criticized Rossi's demos on a base of steam quality. This kind of self-assured but false debunking was very annoying. ―Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Robert Lynn wrote: Killing off opposing views like Abd, Andrew and others does not improve the quality of the discourse. Bill Beaty told me he did not precipitously throw out Andrew. They discussed the rules, and concluded that this forum is not the best fit for Andrew at this time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Bring on your proof that what I have pointed out is not true. Take a few moments to show how DC flowing into the control box due to its internal rectification changes the power delivered to it. You will fail miserably I assure you! You love to make unsupported statements and then fail to do any of the simple tests required to clear up your misunderstanding. I have waited a long time for you or Andrew or Duncan to make that spice model that will demonstrate that what I say is accurate. I will be happy to help you set up a model that will take perhaps 15 minutes of your time to run. If you do not know how to makes such a model then you should remove yourself from this discussion since that would demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic EE knowledge. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I thought that the DC issue was put to rest. Only according to the credulous true believers. 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 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. It can be easily shown that there is not amount of diode trickery which can be put into the control box that will confuse the primary power measurement. I don't agree. Just because you or I can't think of diode trickery doesn't mean it's not possible. You or I can't think of any nuclear reactions to explain the results either, but that doesn't seem to convince you that it's not possible. You should keep an open mind to possibilities you have not thought of. DC input has been eliminated so that is not an issue due to direct observation by one or more of the test personnel. Except we don't know the observation, so it's not convincing. There is noting left to clarify as far as the input is concerned. Manipulation of the mains line is a far smaller perturbation than used in many similar scale scams. Concealed conductors can make the current look like it's zero, or could carry dc or high frequency power. And you also agree that duty cycle operation is obvious by output waveform picture review. No. I disagreed with that at least 3 times. Maybe you missed them. I don't see your problem here. Yes, the modulation of the temperature is consistent with the modulation of the input, but it says nothing about the actual power level in the alleged off part of the cycle. The claim is that the ecat is sustained in the off-cycle, so the decay curve is consistent with the total power *not* going to zero. All the skeptics are claiming is that you'd get the same thing if the input drops to the same level as the level the ecat is claimed to be producing by itself during the off cycle. And that could be done using the cheese power method with a voltage divider or a variac or something. I'm not saying that's how it was done. I'm saying that the unnecessarily indirect output measurement, the unnecessarily complex input supply and the inadequate input measurement, and the blank that was run under different conditions, makes the entire operation suspicious and leaves possibilities for deception. I just don't believe someone who actually had an energy source with MJ+/g, that could produce hundreds of watts at a COP of 3, would demonstrate in this way. It could be made so much better. And so I remain skeptical. When nothing comes of this in a year, will you be a little more skeptical? The viewed duty cycle matches that stated within the report. Anyone that suggests a cheese power type scam is not looking at the evidence. It matches the frequency. Anyone who suggests the evidence proves it goes to zero in the off-cycle does not understand the evidence. Cheese power is far more likely than nickel powder with a power density 100 times that of uranium in a fission reactor, let alone than the possibility of nuclear reactions in that context. Any RF power input would cause serious disruption of the test reading with any
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their reputations on the line. I don't think it's a big risk. They can plausibly claim ignorance. In fact their ignorance is the most plausible explanation.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: What is the best thing about this new demonstration that it excludes definitely steam based tricks from the possible repertoire. So from the beginning it was all about the feeding extra input power via hidden wires. Therefore most of the skeptics were just wrong, because they criticized Rossi's demos on a base of steam quality. Why should Rossi be restricted to one kind of deception? Change-up is the best way to avoid detection. Those steam cons had higher COP and higher power than this latest demo, and the steam was almost certainly very very wet. And note the input was simpler in those experiments. And it would have been trivially easy to eliminate the steam issue, by -- you know -- not making steam, like Levi did in the 18 your test. Ever wonder why that wasn't done under scrutiny?
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bring on your proof that what I have pointed out is not true. Take a few moments to show how DC flowing into the control box due to its internal rectification changes the power delivered to it. 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. 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 that deception on Rossi's part is far more likely than cold fusion. Most people looking at the cheese power video could not prove there was a trick from the video alone, and especially not from a paper written to describe the experiment, by people who actually believed in cheese power. But that doesn't mean they would not be nearly certain there is one. And it would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of electricity to set up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power unequivocally, if it were real. Likewise, the same could be done for the ecat. But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time, when close associates choose the instruments which are completely inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input timing is determined from a video tape, when the COP just happens to equal the reciprocal of the duty cycle, when the power supply box is off-limits, and the power measurements are restricted, and when the claim is as unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious. You will fail miserably I assure you! You love to make unsupported statements and then fail to do any of the simple tests required to clear up your misunderstanding. I have waited a long time for you or Andrew or Duncan to make that spice model that will demonstrate that what I say is accurate. I will be happy to help you set up a model that will take perhaps 15 minutes of your time to run. If you do not know how to makes such a model then you should remove yourself from this discussion since that would demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic EE knowledge. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I thought that the DC issue was put to rest. Only according to the credulous true believers. 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 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. It can be easily shown that there is not amount of diode trickery which can be put into the control box that will confuse the primary power measurement. I don't agree. Just because you or I can't think of diode trickery doesn't mean it's not possible. You or I can't think of any nuclear reactions to explain the results either, but that doesn't seem to convince you that it's not possible. You should keep an open mind to possibilities you have not thought of. DC input has been eliminated so that is not an issue due to direct observation by one or more of the test personnel. Except we don't know the observation, so it's not convincing. There is noting left to clarify as far as the input is concerned. Manipulation of the mains line is a far smaller perturbation than used in many similar scale scams. Concealed conductors can make the current look like it's zero, or could carry dc or high frequency power. And you
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
So, do you need help with that spice model? The remainder of your discussion is nothing more than using words to avoid the issue. It would take you less time to perform the spice experiment than to write a million words that prove nothing. You wrote a large number of unsubstantiated and untrue statements which I want to take apart one by one. It takes far too much time and is frankly boring to the other members of vortex to respond with the volume of material needed to rebut each one. That is why I ask you to concentrate upon one of your choice. Is that asking too much? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bring on your proof that what I have pointed out is not true. Take a few moments to show how DC flowing into the control box due to its internal rectification changes the power delivered to it. 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. 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 that deception on Rossi's part is far more likely than cold fusion. Most people looking at the cheese power video could not prove there was a trick from the video alone, and especially not from a paper written to describe the experiment, by people who actually believed in cheese power. But that doesn't mean they would not be nearly certain there is one. And it would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of electricity to set up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power unequivocally, if it were real. Likewise, the same could be done for the ecat. But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time, when close associates choose the instruments which are completely inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input timing is determined from a video tape, when the COP just happens to equal the reciprocal of the duty cycle, when the power supply box is off-limits, and the power measurements are restricted, and when the claim is as unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious. You will fail miserably I assure you! You love to make unsupported statements and then fail to do any of the simple tests required to clear up your misunderstanding. I have waited a long time for you or Andrew or Duncan to make that spice model that will demonstrate that what I say is accurate. I will be happy to help you set up a model that will take perhaps 15 minutes of your time to run. If you do not know how to makes such a model then you should remove yourself from this discussion since that would demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic EE knowledge. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I thought that the DC issue was put to rest. Only according to the credulous true believers. 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 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. It can be easily shown that there is not amount of diode trickery which can be put into the control box that will confuse the primary power
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
For the purposes of collaborative dynamics modeling, it would be better to use: http://insightmaker.com/ On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: So, do you need help with that spice model? The remainder of your discussion is nothing more than using words to avoid the issue. It would take you less time to perform the spice experiment than to write a million words that prove nothing. You wrote a large number of unsubstantiated and untrue statements which I want to take apart one by one. It takes far too much time and is frankly boring to the other members of vortex to respond with the volume of material needed to rebut each one. That is why I ask you to concentrate upon one of your choice. Is that asking too much? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Bring on your proof that what I have pointed out is not true. Take a few moments to show how DC flowing into the control box due to its internal rectification changes the power delivered to it. 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. 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 that deception on Rossi's part is far more likely than cold fusion. Most people looking at the cheese power video could not prove there was a trick from the video alone, and especially not from a paper written to describe the experiment, by people who actually believed in cheese power. But that doesn't mean they would not be nearly certain there is one. And it would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of electricity to set up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power unequivocally, if it were real. Likewise, the same could be done for the ecat. But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time, when close associates choose the instruments which are completely inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input timing is determined from a video tape, when the COP just happens to equal the reciprocal of the duty cycle, when the power supply box is off-limits, and the power measurements are restricted, and when the claim is as unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious. You will fail miserably I assure you! You love to make unsupported statements and then fail to do any of the simple tests required to clear up your misunderstanding. I have waited a long time for you or Andrew or Duncan to make that spice model that will demonstrate that what I say is accurate. I will be happy to help you set up a model that will take perhaps 15 minutes of your time to run. If you do not know how to makes such a model then you should remove yourself from this discussion since that would demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic EE knowledge. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I thought that the DC issue was put to rest. Only according to the credulous true believers. 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 that deception on Rossi's part is far more likely than the sort of power density they claim without
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time, when close associates chose the instruments which are completely inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input timing is determined from a video tape, and when the claim is as unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious. Yes. Some of these things legitimately raise questions. No one is claiming the experiment was ironclad. With sufficient information of what transpired, there is a possibility that it was done quite well, despite doubts that people may have. What we have now is a second draft of the writeup, dropped into the Internet. The three-phase power seems like a nonissue to me. I disagree. I can see no need for it to supply thermal energy at 1 kW or less. And it does complicate measurement, and open possibilities for deception. It also forces the experimenters to use a particular mains line, which if tampered with, would not be detected by any other instrumentation. And it makes available much higher input power. It's like using a 500 kW generator to power a megacat with 500 kW claimed output. It invites suspicion in a demonstration that was supposed to be designed to eliminate suspicion. The instruments were not necessarily inadequate if they were used in conjunction with other ones. No other ones were reported in the paper, which was written to validate the claims. We have already heard that Hartmann checked the voltage on the line. I thought he was just talking about the voltage readings from the 830, which don't add much. I haven't been able to keep up though. Maybe I missed something. That would have required stripping it of the shielding, which would have revealed any cheese power trickery. Not so. Tinsel also checked voltages and continuity and frequency in the second video without revealing the trick.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
I thought that the DC issue was put to rest. It can be easily shown that there is not amount of diode trickery which can be put into the control box that will confuse the primary power measurement. DC input has been eliminated so that is not an issue due to direct observation by one or more of the test personnel. There is noting left to clarify as far as the input is concerned. And you also agree that duty cycle operation is obvious by output waveform picture review. The viewed duty cycle matches that stated within the report. Anyone that suggests a cheese power type scam is not looking at the evidence. Any RF power input would cause serious disruption of the test reading with any change of position of the probes. If that is not seen, the scope would have detected it. It is time for the skeptics to leave this poor horse alone. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 30, 2013 1:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time, when close associates chose the instruments which are completely inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input timing is determined from a video tape, and when the claim is as unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious. Yes. Some of these things legitimately raise questions. No one is claiming the experiment was ironclad. With sufficient information of what transpired, there is a possibility that it was done quite well, despite doubts that people may have. What we have now is a second draft of the writeup, dropped into the Internet. The three-phase power seems like a nonissue to me. I disagree. I can see no need for it to supply thermal energy at 1 kW or less. And it does complicate measurement, and open possibilities for deception. It also forces the experimenters to use a particular mains line, which if tampered with, would not be detected by any other instrumentation. And it makes available much higher input power. It's like using a 500 kW generator to power a megacat with 500 kW claimed output. It invites suspicion in a demonstration that was supposed to be designed to eliminate suspicion. The instruments were not necessarily inadequate if they were used in conjunction with other ones. No other ones were reported in the paper, which was written to validate the claims. We have already heard that Hartmann checked the voltage on the line. I thought he was just talking about the voltage readings from the 830, which don't add much. I haven't been able to keep up though. Maybe I missed something. That would have required stripping it of the shielding, which would have revealed any cheese power trickery. Not so. Tinsel also checked voltages and continuity and frequency in the second video without revealing the trick.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Oh, and I haven't seen any links to videos. Any chance you could post them again? Is this cheese power, perchance? If so, I've seen them, and I have a theory about how they're done. Should I give that out? I already sussed it out. It's in a set of comments and replies with Tinsel Koala. Regardless of how it's done, or whether Rossi used the same method, the demonstration is very nice illustration that meters can be fooled quite easily when there is a little infrastructure to hide things, and that when an extraordinary claim like cheese-power is made, the assumption immediately falls to trickery, even if the trickery is not understood. 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 NiH could produce 100 times the power density of nuclear fuel without melting. It would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of electricity to set up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power unequivocally, if it were real. Likewise, the same could be done for the ecat. But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time, when close associates chose the instruments which are completely inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input timing is determined from a video tape, and when the claim is as unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Regardless of how it's done, or whether Rossi used the same method, the demonstration is very nice illustration that meters can be fooled quite easily when there is a little infrastructure to hide things, and that when an extraordinary claim like cheese-power is made, the assumption immediately falls to trickery, even if the trickery is not understood. I agree. That's one of the reasons I liked the cheese power demo. 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 NiH could produce 100 times the power density of nuclear fuel without melting. I agree that this is an interesting line of inquiry. It would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of electricity to set up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power unequivocally, if it were real. Likewise, the same could be done for the ecat. This parallel is not a very good one. But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time, when close associates chose the instruments which are completely inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input timing is determined from a video tape, and when the claim is as unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious. Yes. Some of these things legitimately raise questions. No one is claiming the experiment was ironclad. With sufficient information of what transpired, there is a possibility that it was done quite well, despite doubts that people may have. What we have now is a second draft of the writeup, dropped into the Internet. The three-phase power seems like a nonissue to me. The instruments were not necessarily inadequate if they were used in conjunction with other ones. We have already heard that Hartmann checked the voltage on the line. That would have required stripping it of the shielding, which would have revealed any cheese power trickery. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Andrew wrote: Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the emissivity e, you can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower (roughly) than is calculated in the report? For if you can, then you've reduced COP to unity. This assertion is nonsensical. You have forgotten the purpose of the IR camera. The camera measures surface temperature. We know that it is doing this correctly in the second test because it was confirmed with a thermocouple. It is not possible for these two devices to both be wrong and yet within a few degrees of one-another. Measuring temperature is the only purpose of the IR camera, and the only thing it has to do correctly. We know that it is correct, so the discussion is at an end. The COP does not depend on the IR camera in any other way. The rest is basic physics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the emissivity e, you can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower (roughly) than is calculated in the report? For if you can, then you've reduced COP to unity. No, I never thought that for the March experiment (where the COP was 3), where they measure the emissivity. In that experiment, a pretty simple deception illustrated in the videos I posted can explain the alleged COP. I was more suspicious of the December experiment, where they did not measure the emissivity, but those suspicions have been largely allayed by Pekka's calculations, and my subsequent similar calculations. Only the non-grey body considerations may have an effect, but it's a very long shot.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
What simple deception are you describing? DC, RF or hidden wire in the cable? Something else? Andrew - Original Message - From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the emissivity e, you can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower (roughly) than is calculated in the report? For if you can, then you've reduced COP to unity. No, I never thought that for the March experiment (where the COP was 3), where they measure the emissivity. In that experiment, a pretty simple deception illustrated in the videos I posted can explain the alleged COP. I was more suspicious of the December experiment, where they did not measure the emissivity, but those suspicions have been largely allayed by Pekka's calculations, and my subsequent similar calculations. Only the non-grey body considerations may have an effect, but it's a very long shot.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Oh, and I haven't seen any links to videos. Any chance you could post them again? Is this cheese power, perchance? If so, I've seen them, and I have a theory about how they're done. Should I give that out? Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. What simple deception are you describing? DC, RF or hidden wire in the cable? Something else? Andrew - Original Message - From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the emissivity e, you can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower (roughly) than is calculated in the report? For if you can, then you've reduced COP to unity. No, I never thought that for the March experiment (where the COP was 3), where they measure the emissivity. In that experiment, a pretty simple deception illustrated in the videos I posted can explain the alleged COP. I was more suspicious of the December experiment, where they did not measure the emissivity, but those suspicions have been largely allayed by Pekka's calculations, and my subsequent similar calculations. Only the non-grey body considerations may have an effect, but it's a very long shot.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Yes, it's the cheese power videos. I have a theory too, but the point is, many people without a theory would still not believe that the cheese actually supplies the power. And such people could nevertheless design an experiment that excludes tricks. So, it's not necessary to know how Rossi may be tricking the meter to be skeptical of the Ni-H claim. It's only necessary to know that it's not excluded. And a frequency limited ac meter certainly does not exclude input power that exceeds the meter readings. Apparently, the meter indicated zero current during the off-portion of the cycle. Using the method of the cheese power, there could have been nearly full power then, wiping out the COP, which just happens to be the reciprocal of the duty cycle. Now, the temperature does respond to the on/off cycle, so there is some modulation of the power, but it could be a fraction of the total power, so the average is still near the full power. On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Oh, and I haven't seen any links to videos. Any chance you could post them again? Is this cheese power, perchance? If so, I've seen them, and I have a theory about how they're done. Should I give that out? Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Andrew andrew...@att.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:57 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. What simple deception are you describing? DC, RF or hidden wire in the cable? Something else? Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the emissivity e, you can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower (roughly) than is calculated in the report? For if you can, then you've reduced COP to unity. No, I never thought that for the March experiment (where the COP was 3), where they measure the emissivity. In that experiment, a pretty simple deception illustrated in the videos I posted can explain the alleged COP. I was more suspicious of the December experiment, where they did not measure the emissivity, but those suspicions have been largely allayed by Pekka's calculations, and my subsequent similar calculations. Only the non-grey body considerations may have an effect, but it's a very long shot.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
You and I are thinking along the same lines. And yes, the real modulation of the output power by the pulses has to be acknowledged. As I've already mentioned, if there's any power being snuck in, it would have to be occuring during the pulse OFF state - i.e. 65% of the cycle time. Andrew - Original Message - From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Yes, it's the cheese power videos. I have a theory too, but the point is, many people without a theory would still not believe that the cheese actually supplies the power. And such people could nevertheless design an experiment that excludes tricks. So, it's not necessary to know how Rossi may be tricking the meter to be skeptical of the Ni-H claim. It's only necessary to know that it's not excluded. And a frequency limited ac meter certainly does not exclude input power that exceeds the meter readings. Apparently, the meter indicated zero current during the off-portion of the cycle. Using the method of the cheese power, there could have been nearly full power then, wiping out the COP, which just happens to be the reciprocal of the duty cycle. Now, the temperature does respond to the on/off cycle, so there is some modulation of the power, but it could be a fraction of the total power, so the average is still near the full power. On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Oh, and I haven't seen any links to videos. Any chance you could post them again? Is this cheese power, perchance? If so, I've seen them, and I have a theory about how they're done. Should I give that out? Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. What simple deception are you describing? DC, RF or hidden wire in the cable? Something else? Andrew - Original Message - From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the emissivity e, you can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower (roughly) than is calculated in the report? For if you can, then you've reduced COP to unity. No, I never thought that for the March experiment (where the COP was 3), where they measure the emissivity. In that experiment, a pretty simple deception illustrated in the videos I posted can explain the alleged COP. I was more suspicious of the December experiment, where they did not measure the emissivity, but those suspicions have been largely allayed by Pekka's calculations, and my subsequent similar calculations. Only the non-grey body considerations may have an effect, but it's a very long shot.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
I also am pretty sure that most here haven't understood Duncan's diode fudge. The control box is quite capable of switching diodes in and out of circuit, synchronously with the power pulses. Although you're not allowed to look inside the control box (this will reveal the secret waveform? there's another curious assertion!) and directly view any diodes there, in principle this fudge is detectable on the control box input with a scope. But not with an AC clamp ammeter. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. You and I are thinking along the same lines. And yes, the real modulation of the output power by the pulses has to be acknowledged. As I've already mentioned, if there's any power being snuck in, it would have to be occuring during the pulse OFF state - i.e. 65% of the cycle time. Andrew - Original Message - From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Yes, it's the cheese power videos. I have a theory too, but the point is, many people without a theory would still not believe that the cheese actually supplies the power. And such people could nevertheless design an experiment that excludes tricks. So, it's not necessary to know how Rossi may be tricking the meter to be skeptical of the Ni-H claim. It's only necessary to know that it's not excluded. And a frequency limited ac meter certainly does not exclude input power that exceeds the meter readings. Apparently, the meter indicated zero current during the off-portion of the cycle. Using the method of the cheese power, there could have been nearly full power then, wiping out the COP, which just happens to be the reciprocal of the duty cycle. Now, the temperature does respond to the on/off cycle, so there is some modulation of the power, but it could be a fraction of the total power, so the average is still near the full power. On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Oh, and I haven't seen any links to videos. Any chance you could post them again? Is this cheese power, perchance? If so, I've seen them, and I have a theory about how they're done. Should I give that out? Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. What simple deception are you describing? DC, RF or hidden wire in the cable? Something else? Andrew - Original Message - From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the emissivity e, you can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower (roughly) than is calculated in the report? For if you can, then you've reduced COP to unity. No, I never thought that for the March experiment (where the COP was 3), where they measure the emissivity. In that experiment, a pretty simple deception illustrated in the videos I posted can explain the alleged COP. I was more suspicious of the December experiment, where they did not measure the emissivity, but those suspicions have been largely allayed by Pekka's calculations, and my subsequent similar calculations. Only the non-grey body considerations may have an effect, but it's a very long shot.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Joshua, Please take a careful look at the modulated output power that we discussed the other day. You will notice a strong correlation between the input power as registered on the power meter and the shape of the output power. It is evident that the output power is rising for the same amount of time as the input is applied. After the input is removed, the output power begins to drift downward during the entire time that the input power meter reads zero. There is only a slight time delay visible between the transitions. Why would you suggest that the power duty cycle might be much larger during this test with the obvious picture evidence pointing otherwise? I was beginning to think that you were being objective by your response to the thermal camera issue and I had a hope that you would carry forth with this newly found impartiality. Is it difficult for you to agree with obvious evidence if it does not match your theory of the world? The cheese power trick would not behave in the manner seen and you are well aware of this so why not come clean even if it does not make your friends happy? Try to be honest with your assessments and your inputs to this list will be respected. Can we count on you to be objective? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 12:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Yes, it's the cheese power videos. I have a theory too, but the point is, many people without a theory would still not believe that the cheese actually supplies the power. And such people could nevertheless design an experiment that excludes tricks. So, it's not necessary to know how Rossi may be tricking the meter to be skeptical of the Ni-H claim. It's only necessary to know that it's not excluded. And a frequency limited ac meter certainly does not exclude input power that exceeds the meter readings. Apparently, the meter indicated zero current during the off-portion of the cycle. Using the method of the cheese power, there could have been nearly full power then, wiping out the COP, which just happens to be the reciprocal of the duty cycle. Now, the temperature does respond to the on/off cycle, so there is some modulation of the power, but it could be a fraction of the total power, so the average is still near the full power. On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Oh, and I haven't seen any links to videos. Any chance you could post them again? Is this cheese power, perchance? If so, I've seen them, and I have a theory about how they're done. Should I give that out? Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. What simple deception are you describing? DC, RF or hidden wire in the cable? Something else? Andrew - Original Message - From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the emissivity e, you can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower (roughly) than is calculated in the report? For if you can, then you've reduced COP to unity. No, I never thought that for the March experiment (where the COP was 3), where they measure the emissivity. In that experiment, a pretty simple deception illustrated in the videos I posted can explain the alleged COP. I was more suspicious of the December experiment, where they did not measure the emissivity, but those suspicions have been largely allayed by Pekka's calculations, and my subsequent similar calculations. Only the non-grey body considerations may have an effect, but it's a very long shot.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
what ever does the clamp, if bellow 32kHz, the power meter catch it and compute the real power. modern powermeter (and even old analog like the one I used in the 80s) don't care of the shape of the signal. it make the integral of the U*I product over time... only problem is bandwidth, high and low. 2013/5/28 Andrew andrew...@att.net ** I also am pretty sure that most here haven't understood Duncan's diode fudge. The control box is quite capable of switching diodes in and out of circuit, synchronously with the power pulses. Although you're not allowed to look inside the control box (this will reveal the secret waveform? there's another curious assertion!) and directly view any diodes there, in principle this fudge is detectable on the control box input with a scope. But not with an AC clamp ammeter. Andrew
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Please take a careful look at the modulated output power that we discussed the other day. You will notice a strong correlation between the input power as registered on the power meter and the shape of the output power. I mentioned the temperature modulation in the post you're replying to. It's clear that the power to the ecat is modulated at the claimed cycle frequency. That doesn't mean it has to switch to zero during the off portion. It could also be higher during the on portion. The light bulb in the cheese video was not the same brightness in both modes either. That can probably by tailored. Why would you suggest that the power duty cycle might be much larger during this test with the obvious picture evidence pointing otherwise? It's not obvious at all.There is no indication the power to the ecat drops to zero during the off state. Someone could pull the plug during the 4 minute off states and see if the temperature drop is the same or different. I was beginning to think that you were being objective by your response to the thermal camera issue and I had a hope that you would carry forth with this newly found impartiality. Is it difficult for you to agree with obvious evidence if it does not match your theory of the world? I just need good evidence, and I haven't seen it yet. The alternative explanations for this secret experiment are all far more likely than cold fusion. Some say you'll come to understand that as well. Can we count on you to be objective? Do bears shit in the woods?
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Joshua, I hope that you will attempt to find the truth instead of continue to play games. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 1:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Please take a careful look at the modulated output power that we discussed the other day. You will notice a strong correlation between the input power as registered on the power meter and the shape of the output power. I mentioned the temperature modulation in the post you're replying to. It's clear that the power to the ecat is modulated at the claimed cycle frequency. That doesn't mean it has to switch to zero during the off portion. It could also be higher during the on portion. The light bulb in the cheese video was not the same brightness in both modes either. That can probably by tailored. Why would you suggest that the power duty cycle might be much larger during this test with the obvious picture evidence pointing otherwise? It's not obvious at all.There is no indication the power to the ecat drops to zero during the off state. Someone could pull the plug during the 4 minute off states and see if the temperature drop is the same or different. I was beginning to think that you were being objective by your response to the thermal camera issue and I had a hope that you would carry forth with this newly found impartiality. Is it difficult for you to agree with obvious evidence if it does not match your theory of the world? I just need good evidence, and I haven't seen it yet. The alternative explanations for this secret experiment are all far more likely than cold fusion. Some say you'll come to understand that as well. Can we count on you to be objective? Do bears shit in the woods?
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
As I have explained to you many times, a diode inside the control box can not fake out the power meter connected at the socket. This is elementary and should not be repeated by you or any of the skeptics. Why not perform a spice simulation if you are an EE as you claim to lay this to rest once and for all? Kicking a dead horse does no good Andrew. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 1:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. I also am pretty sure that most here haven't understood Duncan's diode fudge. The control box is quite capable of switching diodes in and out of circuit, synchronously with the power pulses. Although you're not allowed to look inside the control box (this will reveal the secret waveform? there's another curious assertion!) and directly view any diodes there, in principle this fudge is detectable on the control box input with a scope. But not with an AC clamp ammeter. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. You and I are thinking along the same lines. And yes, the real modulation of the output power by the pulses has to be acknowledged. As I've already mentioned, if there's any power being snuck in, it would have to be occuring during the pulse OFF state - i.e. 65% of the cycle time. Andrew - Original Message - From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Yes, it's the cheese power videos. I have a theory too, but the point is, many people without a theory would still not believe that the cheese actually supplies the power. And such people could nevertheless design an experiment that excludes tricks. So, it's not necessary to know how Rossi may be tricking the meter to be skeptical of the Ni-H claim. It's only necessary to know that it's not excluded. And a frequency limited ac meter certainly does not exclude input power that exceeds the meter readings. Apparently, the meter indicated zero current during the off-portion of the cycle. Using the method of the cheese power, there could have been nearly full power then, wiping out the COP, which just happens to be the reciprocal of the duty cycle. Now, the temperature does respond to the on/off cycle, so there is some modulation of the power, but it could be a fraction of the total power, so the average is still near the full power. On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Oh, and I haven't seen any links to videos. Any chance you could post them again? Is this cheese power, perchance? If so, I've seen them, and I have a theory about how they're done. Should I give that out? Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. What simple deception are you describing? DC, RF or hidden wire in the cable? Something else? Andrew - Original Message - From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the emissivity e, you can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower (roughly) than is calculated in the report? For if you can, then you've reduced COP to unity. No, I never thought that for the March experiment (where the COP was 3), where they measure the emissivity. In that experiment, a pretty simple deception illustrated in the videos I posted can explain the alleged COP. I was more suspicious of the December experiment, where they did not measure the emissivity, but those suspicions have been largely allayed by Pekka's calculations, and my subsequent similar calculations. Only the non-grey body considerations may have an effect, but it's a very long shot.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. How over-estimate of power
It's the band thing. If e = 1 in the band which the camera can see, and significantly lower in the rest of the spectrum, then the equations they used will show a (perhaps markedly) higher power than was actually generated. Or do I have it backward? Damn! this stuff is confusing. Anybody out there with a still functioning brain? I think such a weird e spectrum would very unlikely! Ol' Bab On 5/27/2013 8:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: If they take emissivity = 1 then they are assuming the worst value for emissivity at all wavelengths. How will a lower emissivity in any range lead to an over estimation of power? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Oh, and I haven't seen any links to videos. Any chance you could post them again? Is this cheese power, perchance? If so, I've seen them, and I have a theory about how they're done. Should I give that out? I already sussed it out. It's in a set of comments and replies with Tinsel Koala. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20:43 AM Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al. Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. In line 1 he makes a dig at Rossi's spelling indipendent : that's NOT in the paper. Yes, it was originally written in Italian and translated. So? He follows Motl in treating the outer cylinder as steel, not steel-ceramic-paint. Did we do the math on this? It was very clearly explained in the paper why they went for a lower COP in March. He's following Krivit (or MaryYugo, but they're the same person, aren't they?) on Levi/Rossi being old buddies. There's no evidence that Levi met Rossi before the Dec 2010 test, and was introduced to him by Forcadi. etc etc
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making a mistake about emissivity. P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K). At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value used to calculate output power, then the actual output power will indeed be less than the calculated value. Bottom line is that if the emissivity is actually 3 times lower than thought, then what was thought to be a COP=3 changes to a COP=1. It wasn't Motl that had it backwards - it was I. Oh and also the guy who got deleted from Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al. Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. - ed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Ekstrom makes the same point as I have failed to make with Dave (and upon which nobody else here has raised concern). Here it is Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3, but constant feeding would yield COP=1? Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making a mistake about emissivity. P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K). At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value used to calculate output power, then the actual output power will indeed be less than the calculated value. Bottom line is that if the emissivity is actually 3 times lower than thought, then what was thought to be a COP=3 changes to a COP=1. It wasn't Motl that had it backwards - it was I. Oh and also the guy who got deleted from Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al. Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. - ed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Yes. I assume that you refer to drive for an operating ECAT compared to a dummy model. Is this what you are pointing out? The numbers speak for themselves. An inactive ECAT dummy will have a COP of 1 and this has no bearing upon what happens to an active one driven high enough to generate internal heat. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 3:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Ekstrom makes the same point as I have failed to make with Dave (and upon which nobody else here has raised concern). Here it is Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3, but constant feeding would yield COP=1? Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making a mistake about emissivity. P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K). At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value used to calculate output power, then the actual output power will indeed be less than the calculated value. Bottom line is that if the emissivity is actually 3 times lower than thought, then what was thought to be a COP=3 changes to a COP=1. It wasn't Motl that had it backwards - it was I. Oh and also the guy who got deleted from Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al. Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. - ed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
The thermal scanning adjusts calculated temperature based on emissivity. You can't adjust it twice, that is what Motil did. That is nonsense. It was also tested (emissivity that is) and it wasn't similar to a metal. You were right to ignore the output side. By even suggesting it Motil and Ekstrom were as disingenous (deceitful) as Rossi is suspected to be on the input side. Sent from my iPhone On May 27, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making a mistake about emissivity. P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K). At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value used to calculate output power, then the actual output power will indeed be less than the calculated value. Bottom line is that if the emissivity is actually 3 times lower than thought, then what was thought to be a COP=3 changes to a COP=1. It wasn't Motl that had it backwards - it was I. Oh and also the guy who got deleted from Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al. Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. - ed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
No. Good grief. You seem to have a Ph.D. in furious misunderstanding. - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Yes. I assume that you refer to drive for an operating ECAT compared to a dummy model. Is this what you are pointing out? The numbers speak for themselves. An inactive ECAT dummy will have a COP of 1 and this has no bearing upon what happens to an active one driven high enough to generate internal heat. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 3:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Ekstrom makes the same point as I have failed to make with Dave (and upon which nobody else here has raised concern). Here it is Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3, but constant feeding would yield COP=1? Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making a mistake about emissivity. P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K). At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value used to calculate output power, then the actual output power will indeed be less than the calculated value. Bottom line is that if the emissivity is actually 3 times lower than thought, then what was thought to be a COP=3 changes to a COP=1. It wasn't Motl that had it backwards - it was I. Oh and also the guy who got deleted from Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al. Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. - ed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
You're saying that the measured emissivity value is trustworthy, and I'm willing to buy that, because they do spend some time in the report on its characterisation. Nevertheless, my point, theoretical though it may be, still stands. Andrew - Original Message - From: Randy Wuller To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:34 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. The thermal scanning adjusts calculated temperature based on emissivity. You can't adjust it twice, that is what Motil did. That is nonsense. It was also tested (emissivity that is) and it wasn't similar to a metal. You were right to ignore the output side. By even suggesting it Motil and Ekstrom were as disingenous (deceitful) as Rossi is suspected to be on the input side. Sent from my iPhone On May 27, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making a mistake about emissivity. P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K). At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value used to calculate output power, then the actual output power will indeed be less than the calculated value. Bottom line is that if the emissivity is actually 3 times lower than thought, then what was thought to be a COP=3 changes to a COP=1. It wasn't Motl that had it backwards - it was I. Oh and also the guy who got deleted from Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al. Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. - ed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
No, this is wrong. It's not so simple. The imager measures power and converts to temperature using the emissivity. Then to convert to power, you use the emissivity again, so in a first approximation, it's a wash. The reason it's not a wash in the 2 examples in the paper (e = .8 and e = .95) is because the imager measures power over a restricted range of wavelength, and according to the company literature, this is accounted for with an effective power in the S-B equation which is not equal to 4. However, depending on the particular temperature (wavelength), the effective power can be greater or less than 4. It's not clear what happens in their software if the emissivity is as low as .2 at that temperature, and they didn't seem to try that. More importantly, emissivity can itself depend on wavelength, and then all bets are off, since the software makes a grey body assumption (lambda independent emissivity). It's possible Rossi found a paint that erred in his favor for the December run. In the March run though, they measured the emissivity, and used a different paint, so it's less likely to be an emissivity issue there. But there the power input is trickier with their poorly documented on/off cycling. And I agree that it's a suspicious coincidence that the COP is the reciprocal of the duty cycle. It seems likely that Rossi may be using cheese power for his energy. Check out these two videos, where equal power is obtained without any registration of current with a clamp-on or in-line ammeter. I don't know how it works, but I'm pretty sure the power doesn't come from the cheese. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovGXDDvc3ck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Ekstrom makes the same point as I have failed to make with Dave (and upon which nobody else here has raised concern). Here it is Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3, but constant feeding would yield COP=1? Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Andrew andrew...@att.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, May 27, 2013 12:10 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making a mistake about emissivity. P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K). At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value used to calculate output power, then the actual output power will indeed be less than the calculated value. Bottom line is that if the emissivity is actually 3 times lower than thought, then what was thought to be a COP=3 changes to a COP=1. It wasn't Motl that had it backwards - it was I. Oh and also the guy who got deleted from Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM *Subject:* [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al. Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. - ed
RE: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
The camera which calculates the temperature of HotCat is based on converting radiance into a corresponding temperature and that camera has a setting for blackbody emissivity, which is usually near one at higher temperature. Levi the Swedes (sounds like the new ABBA) used the most conservative setting one. That device is solving for T not for P. If you entered .33 for the value of epsilon - instead of one, then the temperature will appear to be much higher, not lower. That is precisely why Levi the Swedes correctly stated that they used the most conservative setting. It was Motl who got it backwards and that is why the correct answer was deleted from his blog. Vanity, vanity. From: Andrew Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making a mistake about emissivity. P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K). At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value used to calculate output power, then the actual output power will indeed be less than the calculated value. Bottom line is that if the emissivity is actually 3 times lower than thought, then what was thought to be a COP=3 changes to a COP=1. It wasn't Motl that had it backwards - it was I. Oh and also the guy who got deleted from Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al. Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. - ed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
A lower emissivity setting gives a higher temperature, yes, but then on calculating power, the lower emissivity gives lower power. This should be a wash, except for corrections to the limited wavelength range that the camera measures. Whether this correction favors higher power or not is far from clear, especially if the emissivity is wavelength dependent. So, it is far from obvious that using emissivity of 1 is conservative. It's entirely possible that Rossi found a paint that errs in his favor. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** The camera which calculates the temperature of HotCat is based on converting radiance into a corresponding temperature – and that camera has a setting for blackbody emissivity, which is usually near one at higher temperature. ** ** Levi the Swedes (sounds like the new ABBA) used the most conservative setting – one. ** ** That device is solving for T not for P. ** ** If you entered .33 for the value of epsilon - instead of one, then the temperature will appear to be much higher, not lower. That is precisely why Levi the Swedes correctly stated that they used the most conservative setting. ** ** It was Motl who got it backwards and that is why the correct answer was deleted from his blog. Vanity, vanity. ** ** ** ** ** ** *From:* Andrew ** ** Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making a mistake about emissivity. P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K). At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value used to calculate output power, then the actual output power will indeed be less than the calculated value. Bottom line is that if the emissivity is actually 3 times lower than thought, then what was thought to be a COP=3 changes to a COP=1. It wasn't Motl that had it backwards - it was I. Oh and also the guy who got deleted from Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM *Subject:* [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. ** ** Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al. ** ** Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. ** ** - ed ** **
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Thanks Jones. Good to know that I had it right all along. I was the first here to assert that Motl had it backwards. So, apparently, does Ekstrom. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:44 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. The camera which calculates the temperature of HotCat is based on converting radiance into a corresponding temperature - and that camera has a setting for blackbody emissivity, which is usually near one at higher temperature. Levi the Swedes (sounds like the new ABBA) used the most conservative setting - one. That device is solving for T not for P. If you entered .33 for the value of epsilon - instead of one, then the temperature will appear to be much higher, not lower. That is precisely why Levi the Swedes correctly stated that they used the most conservative setting. It was Motl who got it backwards and that is why the correct answer was deleted from his blog. Vanity, vanity. From: Andrew Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making a mistake about emissivity. P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K). At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value used to calculate output power, then the actual output power will indeed be less than the calculated value. Bottom line is that if the emissivity is actually 3 times lower than thought, then what was thought to be a COP=3 changes to a COP=1. It wasn't Motl that had it backwards - it was I. Oh and also the guy who got deleted from Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al. Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. - ed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
I'm putting the Optris calculations into a spreadsheet -- the following is documentation of the formulae used in readable form From the Optris IR Basics documentation (Page 7) From the actual object temperature (To) and ambient (Ta) To Actual temperature e emmisivity Ta Actual ambient C a constant in the calorimeter Tp Temperature of pyrometer n exponent -- depends on wavelenght U = C *( e*To^n + (1- e)*Ta^n - Tp^n) Measured temperature reported by the calorimeter Tm Measured temperature Note : the optris equation uses the same symbol for Tm and To --- so it seems to be self-referential Tm = root(n,(U - C*Ta^n + C*e*Ta^n + C*Tp^n)/ C*e) Note that a lot of the e cancel out, leaving 1/e terms root(n,val) can be computed as power(val,1/n) -- some languages have problems with this Pm Total power calculated from Tm Pm =a * e * ( Tm^4 - Ta^4) I'll put these equations into the spreadsheet and see what happens for various n (wavelength) and e emmisivity
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
There are 3 cases: 1. Pulse ON state, 35% of the time. COP=1 during this time 2. Pulse OFF state, 65% of the time. COP 1 during this time 3. Dummy, power ON 100% of the time. COP = 1. #1 implies that behaviour is per dummy (i.e. just like a resistor), even for an active device under power. That's the pecularity. Now, a model can be made which exploits the stored energy characteristics of the device. But why would it do worse than COP 1 when under active power input? The magic occurs when the input power is claimed to be OFF. The magic is either due to a mischaracterisation of the true input power during the pulse OFF state, or it's due to genuine power generation of a non-chemical nature by the device, which only arises when power is removed. This is surely worthy of comment, I would have thought. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. No. Good grief. You seem to have a Ph.D. in furious misunderstanding. - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Yes. I assume that you refer to drive for an operating ECAT compared to a dummy model. Is this what you are pointing out? The numbers speak for themselves. An inactive ECAT dummy will have a COP of 1 and this has no bearing upon what happens to an active one driven high enough to generate internal heat. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 3:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Ekstrom makes the same point as I have failed to make with Dave (and upon which nobody else here has raised concern). Here it is Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3, but constant feeding would yield COP=1? Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making a mistake about emissivity. P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K). At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value used to calculate output power, then the actual output power will indeed be less than the calculated value. Bottom line is that if the emissivity is actually 3 times lower than thought, then what was thought to be a COP=3 changes to a COP=1. It wasn't Motl that had it backwards - it was I. Oh and also the guy who got deleted from Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al. Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. - ed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: It seems likely that Rossi may be using cheese power for his energy. Check out these two videos, where equal power is obtained without any registration of current with a clamp-on or in-line ammeter. I don't know how it works, but I'm pretty sure the power doesn't come from the cheese. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovGXDDvc3ck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo It is undeniable that if we could draw that much current from cheese, it would be very good. I'm going to take a crack at this one -- this is a variation on the Theiberger setup [1], where there is silliness going on in the shielded cables feeding from the mains into the assembly. And underneath the knife switch, there is wiring leading to the cheese leads, which closes a circuit from the mains when the knife switch is flipped to the cheese power. Eric [1] http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2013/05/Power-Magic-1-600x515.jpeg
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Keep in mind the possibility that the value of n depends on the wavelength, and therefore presumably on the final calculated temperature, and so an iterative procedure may be needed. In other words, the comparison will not be between 2 emissivities for the same n, but for different n's, and the company literature does not give the method of determining n. And of course, none of this takes account of surfaces that are not grey bodies. The obvious solution would have been to use thermocouples in the December run as well, but they didn't. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I'm putting the Optris calculations into a spreadsheet -- the following is documentation of the formulae used in readable form From the Optris IR Basics documentation (Page 7) From the actual object temperature (To) and ambient (Ta) To Actual temperature e emmisivity Ta Actual ambient C a constant in the calorimeter Tp Temperature of pyrometer n exponent -- depends on wavelenght U = C *( e*To^n + (1- e)*Ta^n - Tp^n) Measured temperature reported by the calorimeter Tm Measured temperature Note : the optris equation uses the same symbol for Tm and To --- so it seems to be self-referential Tm = root(n,(U - C*Ta^n + C*e*Ta^n + C*Tp^n)/ C*e) Note that a lot of the e cancel out, leaving 1/e terms root(n,val) can be computed as power(val,1/n) -- some languages have problems with this Pm Total power calculated from Tm Pm =a * e * ( Tm^4 - Ta^4) I'll put these equations into the spreadsheet and see what happens for various n (wavelength) and e emmisivity
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The camera which calculates the temperature of HotCat is based on converting radiance into a corresponding temperature – and that camera has a setting for blackbody emissivity, which is usually near one at higher temperature. ** ** Levi the Swedes (sounds like the new ABBA) used the most conservative setting – one. This is clearly shown in Fig. 7, where they adjusted it from 1.0 down to 0.8 in the IR camera software. The estimated temperature rose from 496 to 564 deg C. We have been over this several times. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Andrew, It is worth of comment. You haven’t been paying attention apparently… probably due to an imbalance of the ratio between posting vs. listening. There is a common phenomenon in LENR known as temperature ratcheting. Other names are used. And yes, the “magic” does seem to occur when power is temporarily removed. The best guess for “why” involves both strain - due to phase change and also spin changes, due possibly to near-field magnetic effects The level at which power is temporarily removed often corresponds to phase changes in nickel particularly around the Curie Temp. One of the surprises of HotCat is its temperature is much higher than the Ni Curie point, which may indicate that a nickel alloy is now being used. Jones From: Andrew The magic is either due to a mischaracterisation of the true input power during the pulse OFF state, or it's due to genuine power generation of a non-chemical nature by the device, which only arises when power is removed. This is surely worthy of comment, I would have thought. Andrew
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: It seems likely that Rossi may be using cheese power for his energy. Check out these two videos, where equal power is obtained without any registration of current with a clamp-on or in-line ammeter. I don't know how it works, but I'm pretty sure the power doesn't come from the cheese. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovGXDDvc3ck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo It is undeniable that if we could draw that much current from cheese, it would be very good. I'm going to take a crack at this one -- this is a variation on the Theiberger setup [1], where there is silliness going on in the shielded cables feeding from the mains into the assembly. And underneath the knife switch, there is wiring leading to the cheese leads, which closes a circuit from the mains when the knife switch is flipped to the cheese power. There is clearly something underneath the knife switch, and possibly some high frequency on the lines. But the point is, he gets the same power with both meters reading zero as he does when they read current. If the Rossi's on/off cycling uses a switch like that, they would calculate a duty cycle of 1/3 when it should be 1:1. It would be trivial to show the line is providing power by pulling the plug. In Rossi's case, if they pulled the plug during the 4 minutes off, would the temperature profile change? I guess we won't know because this clever snake-oil video maker was not invited to the experiment. But again, I don't have to know how that trick works to be suspicious that the cheese does not provide power, so it's not necessary for me to describe a deception to be suspicious that there is one in the case of the ecat. There are many reasons to be suspicious, which would have been easy to avoid if Rossi had wanted to.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** There are 3 cases: 1. Pulse ON state, 35% of the time. COP=1 during this time No, it is probably higher, but it cannot be measured with certainty because we do not know the recovery rate. (This is not a calorimeter.) 2. Pulse OFF state, 65% of the time. COP 1 during this time Output increases at first and then falls. 3. Dummy, power ON 100% of the time. COP = 1. No, it is never 1. It cannot be. All real devices that do not produce energy (such as electric motors) always produce a COP of less than 1. They estimate they are recovering all but 58 W during the dummy run, which with 910 W input. So that is a COP of 0.93, which is pretty good. But not 1. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The camera which calculates the temperature of HotCat is based on converting radiance into a corresponding temperature – and that camera has a setting for blackbody emissivity, which is usually near one at higher temperature. ** ** Levi the Swedes (sounds like the new ABBA) used the most conservative setting – one. This is clearly shown in Fig. 7, where they adjusted it from 1.0 down to 0.8 in the IR camera software. The estimated temperature rose from 496 to 564 deg C. We have been over this several times. Yes, and still things are left out. The calculated temperature rises, but when you use the same emissivity to calculate the power from the new temperature, the net effect is small. It is positive in that case, but it's not obvious that it's always positive, because the way they choose the effective exponent is not given quantitatively. The paper does not report trying the same thing at lower emissivity like 0.2. And none of this says anything about objects that don't behave like grey bodies. So, in the December experiment, the actual power is very uncertain, and not necessarily conservative. It's sloppy work, plain and simple.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: It is positive in that case, but it's not obvious that it's always positive, because the way they choose the effective exponent is not given quantitatively. The paper does not report trying the same thing at lower emissivity like 0.2. This is an *equation* for crying out loud. Not an experiment. You do not have to try anything. You just plug the number into the equation. The temperature is inversely proportional to the emissivity number. The close to zero, the higher the calculated temperature. They have it set to 1 which gives you the lowest possible calculated temperature. And none of this says anything about objects that don't behave like grey bodies. Nothing can produce a lower temperature per unit of emissivity than a black body. Grey would be better than black, not worse. So, in the December experiment, the actual power is very uncertain, and not necessarily conservative. It's sloppy work, plain and simple. It cannot be more conservative than e=1. You do not understand arithmetic. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** You're saying that the measured emissivity value is trustworthy, and I'm willing to buy that . . . Then you completely misunderstand. In the first test, the number is *not*trustworthy. It is arbitrary. It is set to the lowest possible value. In the second test it is set to the actual value. We know this is trustworthy because they confirmed the calculated surface temperature by measuring the actual surface temperature directly with a thermocouple. WHY is this so difficult to understand?!? Many things in cold fusion experiments are difficult to grasp, but this is grade-school level science. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the e (emissivity) ratio. He wrote: The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075 [2]. The lower value would obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1. He has this backwards. The lower value would yield a much higher temperature, meaning higher power. The most conservative setting is 1. Not only did Ekström get this wrong, so did Cude (it goes without saying), some blogger named Motl, and Andrew. Andrew realized his mistake. Ekström, Cude and Motl will never admit they were wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Andrew, remember the cop is a conservative estimate so it is just a coincidence that the numbers happen to have those ratios. Harry On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Ekstrom makes the same point as I have failed to make with Dave (and upon which nobody else here has raised concern). Here it is Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3, but constant feeding would yield COP=1?
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:12:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the e (emissivity) ratio. He wrote: The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075 [2]. The lower value would obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1. He has this backwards. The lower value would yield a much higher temperature, meaning higher power. The most conservative setting is 1. Not only did Ekström get this wrong, so did Cude (it goes without saying), some blogger named Motl, and Andrew. Andrew realized his mistake. Ekström, Cude and Motl will never admit they were wrong. - Jed And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient ae Tc Tk P area 18 1.00E-100.8 564.1 837.1 38.84 === lower e OVER-estimates the power area 19 1.00E-101 496.6 769.6 34.52 area 20 1.00E-100.95511.7 784.7 35.49 (I set a to an arbitrary value just to make the numbers easy to see).
RE: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Jed: More importantly, why is he using the emissivity of stainless steel, when the outer cylinder is painted ceramic, NOT stainless steel!!! Answer: - he did not read the report, or just skimmed it. - on the emissivity point, he borrowed the basis of the argument from someone else (Motl???) who also uses the emissivity of stainless steel and not ceramic/paint. Yes, all metals have low emissivity, but that is irrelevant when a metal is NOT what is emissiviting (to coin a word)! J Ceramics have a much higher emissivity. I think it was Motl that initiated that erroneous line of reasoning; or was it Gary Wright? -Mark Iverson From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the e (emissivity) ratio. He wrote: The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075 [2]. The lower value would obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1. He has this backwards. The lower value would yield a much higher temperature, meaning higher power. The most conservative setting is 1. Not only did Ekström get this wrong, so did Cude (it goes without saying), some blogger named Motl, and Andrew. Andrew realized his mistake. Ekström, Cude and Motl will never admit they were wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3, but constant feeding would yield COP=1? No, it is not a coincidence. The red curve is normalized to fit the graph. The ratio is meaningless. The text says: The blue curve in Plot 9 is the result of the analysis, and is reproduced here together with the red curve of power consumption normalized to 1. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
An interesting point worth pursuing, at some point - is what nickel alloy has a Curie point in the range of the HotCat core, and is also known to be active with hydrogen? Is there a high temperature alloy with high CP which is also hexavalent? The common alloys for high temperature Curie points include cobalt as the highest by far – but is Cobalt ever hexavalent? Wiki says no, maximum of 5 - but I say yes – cobalt is ferromagnetic with high Curie point and is hexavalent, despite the Wiki pronouncement. In fact, we all contain this factoid in our very essence (precious bodily fluids, even?) Vitamin B12 is completely built around hexavalent cobalt. Case closed. Wiki can be completely wrong on important details, on occasion. Jones There is a common phenomenon in LENR known as temperature ratcheting. Other names are used. And yes, the “magic” does seem to occur when power is temporarily removed. The best guess for “why” involves both strain - due to phase change and also spin changes, due possibly to near-field magnetic effects The level at which power is temporarily removed often corresponds to phase changes in nickel particularly around the Curie Temp. One of the surprises of HotCat is its temperature is much higher than the Ni Curie point, which may indicate that a nickel alloy is now being used. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: It is positive in that case, but it's not obvious that it's always positive, because the way they choose the effective exponent is not given quantitatively. The paper does not report trying the same thing at lower emissivity like 0.2. This is an *equation* for crying out loud. Not an experiment. You do not have to try anything. You just plug the number into the equation. The temperature is inversely proportional to the emissivity number. The close to zero, the higher the calculated temperature. They have it set to 1 which gives you the lowest possible calculated temperature. I think you're mistaken. The emissivity comes in twice. Once when you calculate the temperature from the power, and then again when you calculate the power from the temperature. And it's not inversely proportional; the temperature is proportional to the emissivity to the (-1/4) power, for a given emissive power. So, yes, 1 gives the lowest temperature, but the highest power when you calculate the power from the temperature. You see, that equation gets used twice; once the lower emissivity gives a higher temperature, and once the lower emissivity gives a lower output power. If the power were measured by the camera over the entire spectrum, the result of this would be a complete wash. There would be no effect of emissivity on the resulting power, because of course the camera measures *power*. The reason it's not a wash is because the power is measured in a restricted wavelength range, and to correct for that the camera's software uses an effective value of the exponent on the temperature. This effective value depends on the temperature itself, and since the company literature does not disclose how that exponent is determined, we can't know what power would have resulted if an emissivity of 0.2 had been used. Furthermore, if the emissivity is dependent on wavelength, then the effective exponent is just wrong, because it assumes a grey body. And none of this says anything about objects that don't behave like grey bodies. Nothing can produce a lower temperature per unit of emissivity than a black body. Grey would be better than black, not worse. It's not just temperature though. The calculation of the final power also involves emissivity and here a lower emissivity gives a *lower* power. The two compensate, but not exactly because the correction is not known. Yes, grey gives a higher temperature than black, but not necessarily higher power. And furthermore, I'm talking about non-grey bodies, where the emissivity depends on wavelength. In that case, the effective exponent used is just wrong, and it can go either way. They say as much in their literature. So, in the December experiment, the actual power is very uncertain, and not necessarily conservative. It's sloppy work, plain and simple. It cannot be more conservative than e=1. You do not understand arithmetic. Unfortunately, it's more than arithmetic, and you don't understand why.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient ae Tc Tk P area 18 1.00E-100.8 564.1 837.1 38.84 === lower e OVER-estimates the power area 19 1.00E-101 496.6 769.6 34.52 area 20 1.00E-100.95511.7 784.7 35.49 You're right. I did that calculation too. But the reason they're not equal is because they use an effective exponent not equal to 4 when they calculate temperature. It's not clear what that effective exponent would be if the emissivity were set to 0.2, and so we don't know what the effect would be there. And in particular, we don't know what the effect would be if the emissivity depended on wavelength. The literature warns about poor accuracy in such cases.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Jed: More importantly, why is he using the emissivity of stainless steel, when the outer cylinder is painted ceramic, NOT stainless steel!!! Since it's painted, it doesn't make any difference what was painted. ** ** Yes, all metals have low emissivity, but that is irrelevant when a metal is NOT what is ‘emissiviting’ (to coin a word)! J Ceramics have a much higher emissivity. ** But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent. There may be a paint for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the power. A few measurements could have excluded this possibility.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:41:34 PM And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient a e Tc Tk P area 18 1.00E-10 0.8 564.1 837.1 38.84 === lower e OVER-estimates the power area 19 1.00E-10 1 496.6 769.6 34.52 area 20 1.00E-10 0.95 511.7 784.7 35.49 You're right. I did that calculation too. But the reason they're not equal is because they use an effective exponent not equal to 4 when they calculate temperature. It's not clear what that effective exponent would be if the emissivity were set to 0.2, and so we don't know what the effect would be there. And in particular, we don't know what the effect would be if the emissivity depended on wavelength. The literature warns about poor accuracy in such cases. But it's NOT metal : it's metal-ceramic-paint. AND the blank test was in the same temperature range as the live test. They checked it with a) DOTS of known emissivity and b) A thermocouple -- giving results in reasonable agreement with the calorimeter.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the e (emissivity) ratio. He wrote: The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075 [2]. The lower value would obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1. He has this backwards. The lower value would yield a much higher temperature, meaning higher power. Both temperature and emissivity enter the equation for power. So, higher temperature, yes, but lower emissivity. The net result can be both higher or lower power depending on the effective exponent use by the instrument's software. And we don't know what this would be for an emissivity of 0.2. We only know that for 0.8 and 0.95, the correction gives higher power. The most conservative setting is 1. That's not obvious from the company literature, even for grey bodies, and it can go either way for bodies that are not grey -- that have wavelength dependent emissivities. Metals are examples of this, and presumably there are paints that can emulate metals. Not only did Ekström get this wrong, so did Cude (it goes without saying), some blogger named Motl, and Andrew. Andrew realized his mistake. Ekström, Cude and Motl will never admit they were wrong. I don't think you've actually grasped how emissivity comes into the final calculation of power. Fletcher has, or at least he's much closer than you. Start by reading the company's literature on temperature calculation. I have agreed from the beginning that if the emissivity were 0.8 or 0.95, and the object behaved as a grey body, then using e = 1 would underestimate the power. You can check my first posting on the subject. What happens for much lower emissivities and non grey bodies is far from obvious is all I've said. And from the description in the literature, it can go either way.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:41:34 PM And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient a e Tc Tk P area 18 1.00E-10 0.8 564.1 837.1 38.84 === lower e OVER-estimates the power area 19 1.00E-10 1 496.6 769.6 34.52 area 20 1.00E-10 0.95 511.7 784.7 35.49 You're right. I did that calculation too. But the reason they're not equal is because they use an effective exponent not equal to 4 when they calculate temperature. It's not clear what that effective exponent would be if the emissivity were set to 0.2, and so we don't know what the effect would be there. And in particular, we don't know what the effect would be if the emissivity depended on wavelength. The literature warns about poor accuracy in such cases. But it's NOT metal : it's metal-ceramic-paint. AND the blank test was in the same temperature range as the live test. They checked it with a) DOTS of known emissivity and b) A thermocouple -- giving results in reasonable agreement with the calorimeter. I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used. I don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint, nor it's dependence on wavelength. In the March test, the power estimate was better, though far from good, but the input was dodgier.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Jed: There are really 2 issues regarding the emissivity. When the Thermal Scanner takes a reading it is imaging from the object. In order to convert that image to temperature one must know the emissivity. The scanner has a formula based on the emissivity. You are absolutely right that by inputting an emissivity of 1 the calculated temperature is at the lowest level calculated by the scanner and thus the most conservative. Thus the temperature calculated in the study is conservative. If that was the end of it, the use of 1 for emissivity would be quite conservative. However, for the report that isn't the end. To calculate the energy from the reactor this temperature is used in the Stefan boltzmann constant and emissivity has to again be input to calculate the energy. Using an emissivity in this formula of 1. At any given temperature gives an inflated value of energy for a body with an emissivity less than 1. In this calculation using an emissivity of 1 is not conservative but inflating. The bottom line using a different emissivity in the 2 estimates (calculations) would be crazy and in actuality for all intents they most likely offset each other. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On May 27, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the e (emissivity) ratio. He wrote: The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075 [2]. The lower value would obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1. He has this backwards. The lower value would yield a much higher temperature, meaning higher power. The most conservative setting is 1. Not only did Ekström get this wrong, so did Cude (it goes without saying), some blogger named Motl, and Andrew. Andrew realized his mistake. Ekström, Cude and Motl will never admit they were wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:59:16 PM And we don't know what this would be for an emissivity of 0.2. Who cares? It's NOT metal. There's no way that BLACK PAINT can have an emissivity of 0.2
RE: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
So Josh, Why do you *ignore* the FACT that Ekstrom and others are using the emissivity of stainless when that is irrelevant??? Why not the same critical comments from you about those so-called 'experts' who make such an obvious mistake??? RE: unknown emissivity of the paint in the December test. Yes, as they have explained, they analyzed the December test, realized some weaknesses, took measures in the March test to eliminate/calibrate for those weaknesses, and will be improving their instrumentation and procedures for the next test. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:45 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jed: More importantly, why is he using the emissivity of stainless steel, when the outer cylinder is painted ceramic, NOT stainless steel!!! Since it's painted, it doesn't make any difference what was painted. Yes, all metals have low emissivity, but that is irrelevant when a metal is NOT what is 'emissiviting' (to coin a word)! J Ceramics have a much higher emissivity. But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent. There may be a paint for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the power. A few measurements could have excluded this possibility.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent. There may be a paint for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the power. A few measurements could have excluded this possibility. This book _Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles_ says for a body to have an emissivity 1 it can't be much bigger than the wavelength it radiates. Futhermore, if the surface is covered with such bodies the surface emissivity will not be greater than one. Here is specific page where this is stated: http://tinyurl.com/o6gdvt9 Harry
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Why not the same critical comments from you about those so-called ‘experts’ who make such an obvious mistake??? Confirmation bias. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:02:02 PM I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used. I don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint, nor it's dependence on wavelength. Then forget about the December test. The authors admit that it had certain deficiencies, which were corrected in March. In the March test, the power estimate was better, though far from good, but the input was dodgier. OK --- so you agree that the March output is correct to say 25% ? 50% ? Then comes down to the input. EITHER : a) It was AC and the measurements are fine (say to 10%) b) Rossi used a wire or DC or ... fake c) They're all bought and paid by Rossi.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
From: Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:13:36 PM The bottom line using a different emissivity in the 2 estimates (calculations) would be crazy and in actuality for all intents they most likely offset each other. See my post on the P = a . e . T^4 calculation. 0.85 = e = 1 Even Cude agrees with my calculation.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
2nd test it's trustworthy was the meaning - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: You're saying that the measured emissivity value is trustworthy, and I'm willing to buy that . . . Then you completely misunderstand. In the first test, the number is not trustworthy. It is arbitrary. It is set to the lowest possible value. In the second test it is set to the actual value. We know this is trustworthy because they confirmed the calculated surface temperature by measuring the actual surface temperature directly with a thermocouple. WHY is this so difficult to understand?!? Many things in cold fusion experiments are difficult to grasp, but this is grade-school level science. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
I got it right first, and today, briefly, I believed Ekstrom. Then I returned to sanity - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the e (emissivity) ratio. He wrote: The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075 [2]. The lower value would obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1. He has this backwards. The lower value would yield a much higher temperature, meaning higher power. The most conservative setting is 1. Not only did Ekström get this wrong, so did Cude (it goes without saying), some blogger named Motl, and Andrew. Andrew realized his mistake. Ekström, Cude and Motl will never admit they were wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:59:16 PM And we don't know what this would be for an emissivity of 0.2. Who cares? It's NOT metal. There's no way that BLACK PAINT can have an emissivity of 0.2 I'm no expert, but the table at the site below lists thermafin's black crystal selective surface coating with an emissivity of 0.08 to 0.25. I don't know if you can paint with it, or what, but this was after 3 minutes of searching. I don't put much weight on the Levi-only run anyway. I'm just trying to say that it's not as simple as some people claim, and it points out some pretty sloppy work by these people we're supposed to trust with respect to a scientific revolution. http://www.solarmirror.com/fom/fom-serve/cache/43.html
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: So Josh, Why do you **ignore** the FACT that Ekstrom and others are using the emissivity of stainless when that is irrelevant??? Why not the same critical comments from you about those so-called ‘experts’ who make such an obvious mistake??? ** Well, I wasn't replying to them, or defending them. They did make some simple mistakes. Why do I not criticize them? If they were claiming to revolutionize science, and made mistakes like that in the claims, I might just. But they're not. They're writing blogs in response to such claims. Some hastiness is to be forgiven in that context. In the context of Levi's claims, I would expect greater care. ** RE: unknown emissivity of the paint in the December test… Yes, as they have explained, they analyzed the December test, realized some weaknesses, took measures in the March test to eliminate/calibrate for those weaknesses, and will be improving their instrumentation and procedures for the next test. ** ** RIght, but why even bother reporting the December test in that case? And while they improved the emissivity question, they made the question of input murkier.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent. There may be a paint for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the power. A few measurements could have excluded this possibility. This book _Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles_ says for a body to have an emissivity 1 it can't be much bigger than the wavelength it radiates. I'm not suggesting emissivity greater than 1. I'm suggesting we don't know how the correction for a limited wavelength range goes for low emissivity (this could be answered with a bit of effort, or by an expert in the area), and more importantly, we don't know if the surface has a wavelength dependent emissivity, in which case, an assumption of unity could err on either side of the true value of the power depending on the particular dependence.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: This document stands as its own rebuttal. I think that overstates things. After reading through the comments, Ekstrom brings up a number of details that could plausibly be remedied in any followup test. I think we have exaggerated the deficiencies in his comments (e.g., the reference to the emissivity of stainless steal, the assumption of a longtime friendship between Levi and Rossi, etc.) and played down the good points he brings up. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Josh questions: I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used. I don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint, nor its dependence on wavelength. You could just as easily do a 30 second search and FIND THE ANSWER! Emissivity of various materials: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html Black Body Matt 1.00 Black lacquer on iron 0.875 Black Silicone Paint 0.93 Black Epoxy Paint 0.89 Black Enamel Paint 0.80 ALL of these black paints are within the range: 0.80 - 0.93 From this document: http://www.scigiene.com/pdfs/428_InfraredThermometerEmissivitytablesrev.pdf (the figure on the far right is the emissivity) Paints Blue, Cu2O3 75 (24) 0.94 Black, CuO 75 (24) 0.96 Green, Cu2O3 75 (24) 0.92 Red, Fe2O3 75 (24) 0.91 White, Al2O3 75 (24) 0.94 White, Y2O3 75 (24) 0.9 White, ZnO 75 (24) 0.95 White, MgCO3 75 (24) 0.91 White, ZrO2 75 (24) 0.95 White, ThO2 75 (24) 0.9 White, MgO 75 (24) 0.91 White, PbCO3 75 (24) 0.93 Yellow, PbO 75 (24) 0.9 Yellow, PbCrO4 75 (24) 0.93 It should be obvious that most paints, REGARDLESS OF COLOR, have an emissivity 0.9. In addition, the value for the black paint used on the March reactor was ALSO in this range when emissivity 'dots' and a thermocouple were used as checks. If someone wanted to go back to the December reactor and substitute a value for emissivity, a value within this range is REASONABLE; using or suggesting something *other* than this would require justification. With the internet being so convenient, let's check for the emissivity for the underlying ceramic: . having a *silicon nitride* ceramic outer shell, 33 cm in length, and 10 cm in diameter. Emissivity between .88 to .98. See the chart a few postings from the top at this website: http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/22307/Emissivity-Of-Silicon-Nitride-Si3N4 A second cylinder made of a different ceramic material (corundum). The above-linked table also lists: Silicon Carbide (carborundum)0.83 - 0.96 But they specifically say, 'corundum', which is a crystalline form of aluminum oxide (Al2O3). This is a common geological mineral, and I have to wonder if they really meant carborundum (SiC)? -Mark Iverson From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:02 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:41:34 PM And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient a e Tc Tk P area 18 1.00E-10 0.8 564.1 837.1 38.84 === lower e OVER-estimates the power area 19 1.00E-10 1 496.6 769.6 34.52 area 20 1.00E-10 0.95 511.7 784.7 35.49 You're right. I did that calculation too. But the reason they're not equal is because they use an effective exponent not equal to 4 when they calculate temperature. It's not clear what that effective exponent would be if the emissivity were set to 0.2, and so we don't know what the effect would be there. And in particular, we don't know what the effect would be if the emissivity depended on wavelength. The literature warns about poor accuracy in such cases. But it's NOT metal : it's metal-ceramic-paint. AND the blank test was in the same temperature range as the live test. They checked it with a) DOTS of known emissivity and b) A thermocouple -- giving results in reasonable agreement with the calorimeter. I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used. I don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint, nor it's dependence on wavelength. In the March test, the power estimate was better, though far from good, but the input was dodgier.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent. There may be a paint for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the power. A few measurements could have excluded this possibility. This book _Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles_ says for a body to have an emissivity 1 it can't be much bigger than the wavelength it radiates. I'm not suggesting emissivity greater than 1. I'm suggesting we don't know how the correction for a limited wavelength range goes for low emissivity (this could be answered with a bit of effort, or by an expert in the area), and more importantly, we don't know if the surface has a wavelength dependent emissivity, in which case, an assumption of unity could err on either side of the true value of the power depending on the particular dependence. If they take emissivity = 1 then they are assuming the worst value for emissivity at all wavelengths. How will a lower emissivity in any range lead to an over estimation of power? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If they take emissivity = 1 then they are assuming the worst value for emissivity at all wavelengths. How will a lower emissivity in any range lead to an over estimation of power? Joshua's position is that in the present measurements, the emissivity is implicitly taken into account twice when using an IR camera, and that in assuming that a high epsilon is conservative (in the first calculation), people are neglecting to see what effect it has on the calculated power in the second calculation. There are some subtleties that have to do with the processing software of the IR camera. He has explained this several times. I would be interested in a second opinion from someone familiar with IR cameras. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent. There may be a paint for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the power. A few measurements could have excluded this possibility. This book _Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles_ says for a body to have an emissivity 1 it can't be much bigger than the wavelength it radiates. I'm not suggesting emissivity greater than 1. I'm suggesting we don't know how the correction for a limited wavelength range goes for low emissivity (this could be answered with a bit of effort, or by an expert in the area), and more importantly, we don't know if the surface has a wavelength dependent emissivity, in which case, an assumption of unity could err on either side of the true value of the power depending on the particular dependence. If they take emissivity = 1 then they are assuming the worst value for emissivity at all wavelengths. How will a lower emissivity in any range lead to an over estimation of power? Harry Never mind. I see what you mean The power measurements are just as sloppy as the earlier ECat tests. I though it would be when I heard in April that they were measuring radiant power. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua's position is that in the present measurements, the emissivity is implicitly taken into account twice when using an IR camera, and that in assuming that a high epsilon is conservative (in the first calculation), people are neglecting to see what effect it has on the calculated power in the second calculation. For the fifth time, the authors addressed this! It is shown right there in Fig. 7. The camera software computes higher temperatures. The higher the temperature, the higher the power (all else being equal, which of course it is, since we are only changing one parameter). It could not be shown more clearly! With this camera, when you lower the emissivity parameter, the computed temperature goes up. Cude asserts that if they lowered it all the way to 0.2 the temperature might be computed lower. I am sure this is nonsense, but even if it were true it is irrelevant. There is not a shred of evidence the actual emissivity of this reactor is anything close to 0.2. It is 0.7 to 0.9. It makes no sense to talk about 0.2 anything. I would be interested in a second opinion from someone familiar with IR cameras. In Fig. 7, the IR camera itself tells you the answer! That is the most authoritative answer you can get. - Jed
