Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
My *FINAL* version is up at http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v310.php Main changes : I added an abstract I moved the conclusion near the end of the document I added a plethora of Sherlock Holmes quotes. I'm going to generate (semi-automatically, I hope) a reference PDF printable version (with form feeds, so tables and diagrams aren't broken).
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
You spelled Krivit wrong. As Krivet. One more revision after all! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
At 02:36 PM 4/1/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: You spelled Krivit wrong. As Krivet. One more revision after all! Fixed. I looked at his paper and corrected KrivetS to Krivet. I think it's a fact of proof-reading that if you correct an error then the probabilty of missing an error within one attention span approaches 1.0. For amusement, my list of Holmes quotes, in their original context, is at http://lenr.qumbu.com/holmes.php
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
At 02:36 PM 4/1/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: One more revision after all! V 3.11 http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v311.php Printable HTML (just with form-feeds) : http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v311.php?print PDF for reference (with footer, page numbers etc) : http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v311.pdf
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
Nearly done ... http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v309.php?todo=1 Apart from final clean-up, I'm wondering whether to present the results in summary form : Thinks: For each fake material I present five different experiments --- I could make a summary table ordered by experiment and then method. That would show a sea of RED/FAKE for January, and a sea of GREEN/REAL for February.
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I'm looking for a quote I read *YEARS* ago ... with respect to what you have to do to get PF Cold fusion to work Something like 5 essential steps, where the debunkers skipped one or more of them I do not understand this comment. No one knows what steps are essential to making cold fusion work. If we knew, we would do them every time and the experiment would always work. Rossi apparently knows . . . The control parameters for electrolytic cold fusion are well established, but achieving those parameters remains difficult. For example, you need loading over ~90% (or some number, depending on how you measure loading). It is easy to observe that is the case, but very difficult to actually achieve that level of loading. It resembles Aesop's fable about belling the cat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
At 04:44 AM 3/24/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I'm looking for a quote I read *YEARS* ago ... with respect to what you have to do to get PF Cold fusion to work Something like 5 essential steps, where the debunkers skipped one or more of them I do not understand this comment. No one knows what steps are essential to making cold fusion work. If we knew, we would do them every time and the experiment would always work. Found it! On some obscure CF site ... http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation of heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally posted to a CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is correlated with the criteria and that production of excess heat is a real physical effect beyond a reasonable doubt.
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
that looks familiar. But remember correlation does not mean causation. Now I wonder if you can find my poster presentation for the same meeting : ) concerning gas loading yielding heat at higher temperatures .. The review was made at the request of the conference aimed at introducing new people to the field. But since Letts and I presented the review, I was relegated to the the poster session for the gas loading. At the time I was still having problem with my gas lines serving as heat pipes and introducing questions. But the bottom line there was that higher temps were better and I needed to get above 250 C or so to see much of anything. I am still no where near Rossi's 10Kw/100g Ni =100W/gm. I am still lucky to see 0.5 W/g on a good day. Oh I wish I know what Rossi's secret additive is. Dennis C From: Alan J Fletcher Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:12 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real At 04:44 AM 3/24/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I'm looking for a quote I read *YEARS* ago ... with respect to what you have to do to get PF Cold fusion to work Something like 5 essential steps, where the debunkers skipped one or more of them I do not understand this comment. No one knows what steps are essential to making cold fusion work. If we knew, we would do them every time and the experiment would always work. Found it! On some obscure CF site ... http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation of heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally posted to a CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is correlated with the criteria and that production of excess heat is a real physical effect beyond a reasonable doubt.
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
Yet another version : http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v307.php I've expanded the history section, added Jed's hidden tubes to the Hidden wires and added more disclaimers to the methodology (ie I that I include impractical solutions). I MIGHT add to each Fake a comment on its practicality. The only technical section left to complete. is the Boron/Steam + Hydrogen/Oxygen fake.
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
At 11:38 AM 3/24/2011, Dennis wrote: that looks familiar. But remember correlation does not mean causation. My History section now has: Cravens And Letts (The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt) performed a statistical anaylysis of 167 papers, and identified 4 criteria which were satisfied in all successful experiments (including Pons and Fleishman's original paper), and in which one or more were omitted in failed experiments -- including all the original Debunking papers. The most important are Lewis (Caltech) -- where NONE of these criteria were met, and Williams (Harwell), in which only ONE was met. These two papers effectively removed Cold Fusion from main stream science (and funding). Cravens And Letts point out that although ignoring these criteria guarantees failure, folllowing them improves, but does not ensure success. Alchemists were well advised to include the eye of newt in their potions, since they did not understand which of the many steps was critical to success, and which were irrelevant. These alchemists used better science than Lewis and Williams. [ I still need another pass through the spellchecker .. ] Oh I wish I know what Rossi's secret additive is. Don't we all!
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
Dennis wrote: I am still no where near Rossi's 10Kw/100g Ni =100W/gm. I am still lucky to see 0.5 W/g on a good day. Okay, so can you try 200 g to get ~100 W? Or would that much material be too expensive? Would it not fit into your cell? I think it would be valuable to demonstrate a 100 W reaction. It would demonstrate that in principle the thing can be scaled up, which indicates that Rossi is right. Since you do not know Rossi's formula and it is unlikely you can hit it by random attempts, this would also indicate there may be more than one valid formula. It could be that a variety of Ni alloys work. As Peter Gluck often points out, a large reaction has value in its own right, just because it is large. I would rate anything above 10 W as large. I think Ed Storms disagrees with Gluck. He says with a larger reaction you only amplify the noise along with the signal. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
In reply to Dennis's message of Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:38:31 -0600: Hi, [snip] much of anything. I am still no where near Rossi's 10Kw/100g Ni =100W/gm. I am still lucky to see 0.5 W/g on a good day. Oh I wish I know what Rossi's secret additive is. Dennis C ...My guess would be Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
In reply to Dennis's message of Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:38:31 -0600: Hi, [snip] I am still no where near Rossi's 10Kw/100g Ni =100W/gm. I am still lucky to see 0.5 W/g on a good day. Oh I wish I know what Rossi's secret additive is. I would give NaOH a shot. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
Thanks, Cousin for mentioning my opinion. A large reaction is good: a) because it is a promise of technological usefulness, b) it helps you to NOT waste creativity on sophisticated measurement-as calorimetry, saves you from metrologomania. I don't understand the problem of signal/noise in this case;why should the relative noise increase with intensity of the reaction. But I don't know if you cite Ed exactly. Intensity of reaction is a sine qua non condition of an energy source; the others are: -reproducibility and controllability (what we reproduce, do we reproduce it quantitatively enough?) Reproducibility is not abstract is pragmatic concept. - continuity - months of functioning without decay of the above criteria, - upscalability (The E-cat makes this in a rather strange way from the point of view of engineering-coupling of many units.) One great question is- how much of what we learn from the successful Ni based LENR can be used for the Pd D based LENR? One song of Nature or two different songs? Where I absolutely disagree with Ed is that he does not believe that the polar impurities of air are crippling all the CF systems because thede are catalytic and sensitive, while I am convinced of it. On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Dennis wrote: I am still no where near Rossi's 10Kw/100g Ni =100W/gm. I am still lucky to see 0.5 W/g on a good day. Okay, so can you try 200 g to get ~100 W? Or would that much material be too expensive? Would it not fit into your cell? I think it would be valuable to demonstrate a 100 W reaction. It would demonstrate that in principle the thing can be scaled up, which indicates that Rossi is right. Since you do not know Rossi's formula and it is unlikely you can hit it by random attempts, this would also indicate there may be more than one valid formula. It could be that a variety of Ni alloys work. As Peter Gluck often points out, a large reaction has value in its own right, just because it is large. I would rate anything above 10 W as large. I think Ed Storms disagrees with Gluck. He says with a larger reaction you only amplify the noise along with the signal. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v306.php At 06:10 PM 3/22/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Typo in report: higher inout power Probably should be: higher input power Is that still there? .. I fixed it a few versions ago, and can't find it in my current version. In the report you wrote: Since then, Rossi has PAID the University of Bologna E500,000 to investigate and develop the eCat device . . . I believe that's E1,000,000. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3123849.ece From Leonardo Corporation Rossi is now paying the remaining 500,000 Euros to the Physics Department of Bologna University, following a new agreement under which the university will help Rossi with the continued development of the reactor and studies of its physical phenomena. Some or all of the original 'independent investigators' have now become 'team members'. Without casting aspersions on their integrity, it is not clear whether their subsequent statements can be used to formally prove that the eCat is real. I currently (3.06) have the conclusion as : The Proof that the device is real currently rests on Levi's informal description: if you accept all of Levi's February report, then all fakes are conclusively ruled out. And in recent events I quote Levi : Since many of the original independent observers are now presumed to be under contract to Rossi, some might question their future impartiality. However, as Levi noted: If I were an old professor with his career already done, then I would not have anything to risk. But any attempt at fraud on my part would be a terrible personal goal. What could I hope for? To have a title for ten days, and then be thrown from my own department. Because (the matter of) fraud comes up sooner or later. There is no hope for it. So if I ... well, I would be really stupid. Honestly, I would be really stupid! If professors are to be considered suspicious or unethical because someone, somewhere pays for the research, then all professors in all universities might as well be considered whores. Nearly all medical research is paid for by drug companies ... Ummm ... SOME would say that makes my point! Rothwell argues that some kinds of fakes would have been NOTICED by the observers (For example, if Diesel fuel were burned, there would be copious fumes). I expanded expand that comment: Rothwell argues that some kinds of fakes would have been NOTICED by the observers (For example, if Diesel fuel were burned, there would be copious, fatally asphyxiating fumes --- though in the January experiment they could theoretically have been piped out of the room in the steam pipe.). But I'll leave gasoline/diesel IN because many people have used it as a frame of reference.
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: higher inout power Probably should be: higher input power Is that still there? .. It's fixed. burned, there would be copious, fatally asphyxiating fumes --- though in the January experiment they could theoretically have been piped out of the room in the steam pipe.). But I'll leave gasoline/diesel IN because many people have used it as a frame of reference. That's reasonable. I think you should add that there is no space in a 1 L volume for burners, tanks and other equipment needed to burn any form of liquid or gas fuel. Cramming a burner right next to the tank would surely result in an explosion. So, unless someone finds a small pipe attached to a hidden fuel tank, we can rule out any conventional liquid or gas fuel such as kerosene or butane. Since the machine is resting on a piece of wood and the bottom is clearly visible, I think we can rule out a small pipe, the same way we can rule out a small wire. I do not know how small the pipe would be. My 4.4 kW butane table-top stove has a copper pipe ~4 mm diameter. The butane cylinder is mounted behind a thin firewall, ~12 cm from the center of the burner in the next compartment. Bear in mind this calls for 16 kW and sometimes 130 kW. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
I'm looking for a quote I read *YEARS* ago ... with respect to what you have to do to get PF Cold fusion to work Something like 5 essential steps, where the debunkers skipped one or more of them Krivits http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2005/2005KrivitS-HowCanItBeReal-Paper.pdf comes close, but I don't see those steps.
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
At 12:31 PM 3/18/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I've almost finished the main versionhttp://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v305.php Todo : -- Implement expressions for the remaining mechanisms (eg Heat storage). -- Research the Energy Density for Boron/Steam (probably the highest density)
Re: [Vo]:How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
Typo in report: higher inout power Probably should be: higher input power In the report you wrote: Since then, Rossi has PAID the University of Bologna E500,000 to investigate and develop the eCat device . . . I believe that's E1,000,000. Some or all of the original 'independent investigators' have now become 'team members'. Without casting aspersions on their integrity, it is not clear whether their subsequent statements can be used to formally prove that the eCat is real. That's preposterous. No university allows research without funding. There are NO conventional academic funding sources for cold fusion. NONE. ZIP. ZERO. The only way this can happen is for Rossi or someone who knows and trusts him to pay for it directly. I think you should at least add that there is still no reason why Levi would deliberately go about destroying his own reputation and ending his career. Do you think he would do that for his share of the E1 million? That would be his regular salary. Universities never pass along research money directly to professors as a bonus. Note that Rossi is paying the university, not Levi personally. I expect a large chunk of it is going to university overhead. I don't know what team player means in this context but usually a member of a team is paid by the team. If professors are to be considered suspicious or unethical because someone, somewhere pays for the research, then all professors in all universities might as well be considered whores. Nearly all medical research is paid for by drug companies or the NIH. Nearly all energy research is paid for by energy companies or the DoE. The corporations do it for only for profit, and the NIH and the DoE are riddled with politics and power games. There are no clean or objective source of funding in academic research. It is too expensive for that. U. Bologna's funding from Rossi is no more suspicious than any other. Rothwell argues that some kinds of fakes would have been NOTICED by the observers (For example, if Diesel fuel were burned, there would be copious fumes). Noticed is not strong enough. The observers would be asphyxiated. You cannot burn enough Diesel fuel to produce 15 kW of heat in an enclosed space without hurting or killing someone. You can always tell when someone is dead and others have been taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation. That would be in the news. So you can definitely eliminate that possibility, even more than you could with instruments galore. A dead body is better proof of poison than an instrument reading. - Jed
