subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:Why Levi is upset"


Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

There is a classic demonstration, used to be common in high school 
physics labs: you boil water in a paper cup, over a flame, as I recall.


A paper cup!?


Please, folks, don't stick your hand in that invisible steam. It may 
only be at 100 degrees, but it's dangerous, it's carrying a lot of 
heat, which it will cheerfully transfer to your skin, in a flash. 
Maybe if you are *fast*, you wouldn't get burned, but I wouldn't 
advise trying it.


Neither would I, but that is what I have seen grizzled boiler room 
workers do. They don't hold their hands in the steam! They wave their 
hand through, quickly. The way a person can wave a finger through a the 
flame of a candle. If the steam is wet, droplets adhere to the skin and 
that hurts.


They do not do this with superheated steam, obviously. Only process 
steam a little above 100°C.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset


Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented.


Lost performative here. That's why Stephen and Jed are talking past 
each other. Jed means confirmed for Levi and Rossi, Stephen means 
didn't confirm for the rest of us. Basically, confirmed is an 
interpretation, not a fact. Ever. Since it is meaning supplied, who 
supplies the meaning is crucial.


That's exactly what I meant. Obviously if you don't take Levi's word for 
it, this is not proof for you. Also, as I said, I am a little irritated 
with Levi for not publishing a detailed description of the second test. 
After he did this test, I assumed that he would publish a short paper 
with details such as the type of flow meter, the precise temperatures 
and flow rate, graphs and so on.


I do not think he has published such a paper. I haven't seen one. 
Perhaps he intends to, and he is still working on it.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset


I wrote:

Lost performative here. That's why Stephen and Jed are talking past 
each other. Jed means confirmed for Levi and Rossi, . . .


That's exactly what I meant. Obviously if you don't take Levi's word 
for it, this is not proof for you.


I should have said: this is not CONFIRMATION for you.

The reason this is confirmation is because they employed a different 
method: liquid state flow. In some ways that is easier and more 
reliable. I do not think there is any chance they made a significant 
error, so if the report is false, that can only be because they lied. 
That's plausible, but I find it so unlikely, I dismiss it from serious 
consideration. Too many people have seen this effect in too many places 
for this to be a lie.


However, just because I am sure that Levi et al. are not lying, that is 
no reason why Stephen Lawrence should believe them.


The reports of these tests have been inadequate. I wish that better 
reports were available. The tests themselves have some significant 
deficiencies in my opinion. They could be improved with better 
computerized data collection and redundant instruments. It is reasonable 
that some people are not fully convinced by inadequate reports of 
second-rate calorimetry. It is also reasonable that other people, 
including me, are convinced. This is partly a judgment call, and partly 
a matter of speculating about people's personalities and motivations. In 
such things there can be honest disagreements. This is not a math 
equation proof, with a single, irrefutable answer.


Another factor is that I have some unpublished information about this 
test, and about some other private tests. I do not have a huge amount of 
information, but enough to give me more confidence in the results. 
Stephen Lawrence does not have this information so naturally he is more 
skeptical than I am. That's reasonable.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

2011-06-20 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

From Jed:

...

 Another factor is that I have some unpublished information about this test,
 and about some other private tests. I do not have a huge amount of
 information, but enough to give me more confidence in the results. Stephen
 Lawrence does not have this information so naturally he is more skeptical
 than I am. That's reasonable.

Since you brought it up, it obviously begs the question:

Can you elaborate a little more about such unpublished information.

Can you post the information our here, or are there constraints
preventing you from doing so.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset


OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:


Can you elaborate a little more about such unpublished information.


Nope. Sorry. Over the past year I mentioned several times that I heard 
about private tests of the eCats. Some worked, others did not. Some of 
the people doing these tests shared a few results with me. As I said at 
the time of the January U. Bologna demonstration, mainly what they had 
been telling me is Don't dismiss Rossi. Our tests indicate there is 
something to it. We're getting 5 or 10 kW. Rossi told me 10 kW too, 
but I had great difficulty believing it. I hope I did not fully 
_disbelieve_ it. Anyone familiar with the difficulties of cold fusion 
will know why it seemed outlandish to me.


It wasn't a black swan in the sense of being totally unanticipated, 
but it was a bigger leap than I thought possible.


My position was similar to that of a knowledgeable French person 
interested in aviation in 1908 who gets a letter from a U.S. colleague 
saying: the Wrights reportedly flew for 24 miles in 39 minutes, in 
1905. In 1908, the best French aviators barely managed to get off the 
ground. They flew uncontrolled hops, lasting a minute or so. The notion 
that anyone could fly for miles over a half hour must have seemed 
preposterous. It is no wonder the French experts did not believe the 
claims. The day after Orville actually flew in front of those experts, 
every one of them believed it -- even the ones who were not present and 
only heard about it from others. They were a small group of people who 
understood one another, and trusted one another (mostly) and they were 
in close communication. Some of them had colossal egos, and considered 
themselves the best experts in aviation in the world. Yet the moment 
those present saw the flight, they instantly admitted: Well, we are 
beaten! We just don't exist! (Delagrange). They told all the other 
experts and within a day. In a similar way, the Italians and French 
researchers at the Rossi demonstration were instantly convinced. They 
know calorimetry well enough to judge this issue. I probably would have 
been convinced if I had been present. As soon as I heard from them I had 
no real doubt about it.


This comparison works better than you might realize, because there were 
a number of stunts and uncontrolled flights before 1908 in Europe in the 
U.S. There were powered dirigible balloon flights, including one by 
Santos-Dumont around the Eiffel tower in 1906. A person who did not 
understand aviation back then would have had some difficulty 
distinguishing between what Orville did in his flight, and what what the 
French aviators had accomplished earlier. The difference was like night 
and day to them, but to an outsider it might be obscure. I am sorry to 
sound condescending, but some of the skeptical comments about Rossi 
(including a few of the ones here) sound to me like a person in 1908 
saying: How do you know the Wright airplane is not actually a dirigible 
with a motor on it? And how can you be sure he really did control the 
flight? The answer back then was: I can tell by looking; and, M. Wright 
would have been killed had he not been fully in control of the aircraft. 
(It flew straight toward a grove of trees, but he veered around them.) 
The fact that Rossi has done what he claims is equally self-evident to 
me. The speculation about wet and dry steam is bunk. The second test 
proved that beyond any doubt. It is a waste of time even discussing it.




Can you post the information our here, or are there constraints
preventing you from doing so.


If I were not constrained, I would publish it on LENR-CANR.org. I hope 
that I will be allowed to do that before long.


The Defkalion press release says they will release a lot of information 
on July 23, including some technical information. Unfortunately they do 
not plan to demonstrate a reactor, which is why I am not going.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset


At 04:59 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:


On 11-06-19 04:38 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

At 11:57 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble 
getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher 
than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure.


Stephen, perhaps you are making the same mistake here, 
misunderstanding what's being said.


?  What point did I miss ?

It's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C, but it would take 
post-generation heating.


Obviously.  It boils at 100C, and to make it hotter than that, you 
need to heat it some more.


Right. The transfer of energy from the walls of the cooling chamber 
to the steam is inefficient, compared to the transfer to water.



I'm sorry, but I seem to have totally missed the point of what follows.
It appears to be a rehash of all that's been said already regarding 
steam.  Certainly there's nothing to disagree with in it (save one 
item I flagged), but I don't understand what point you were trying to make.


The point is that Jed was probably talking about the practical 
situation, that, in it, there would be no practical way to get steam 
at higher than 100 C.


BTW regarding fire walkers, part of the trick may be something 
Lawrence was made to say in the film Lawrence of Arabia:  The 
'trick' is not caring that it hurts.


That's an effect, for sure. However, that would not explain the lack 
of burns. From what I understand, sometimes there are minor burns, 
and if a person were to react to the pain, then might then suffer 
greater burns, so both effects could be operating. The relative lack 
of burns would be a protective effect from water vapor. The close 
contact with the coals is kept very short. Fire walking is not a 
casual stroll, with pauses!



My guess, though, the Rossi devices would spit water. That could be 
avoided by redesign, and this may be what they have done. It would 
spit water if the manner of heating, inside, allowed pockets of 
steam to be trapped, with water blocking the exist path, so the 
water would be blown out. Basically, gravity could be used to keep 
the water in the bottom of the cell, with the steam rising out the 
top. But the E-Cat appears to have a horizontal design. So that it 
would spit isn't terribly surprising. This might be avoided by 
simply tipping the thing a little, so that the exit tube is the 
highest point inside, and bubbles of steam rising from anywhere 
inside would rise directly to that point, with no place for them to be trapped.


Once the thing doesn't spit, there is no need for the tube to the 
sink, nor any need to collect water, since there would be no water 
coming out at any point.


There is a need, actually.  It's generating so much heat (10 kW + ) 
that it would rapidly turn the lab into a sauna if it weren't vented 
someplace.  Stuffing the hose down the sink dumps the heat, not just the water.


That sounds like a nifty excuse to me. How about ventilation of the 
lab, fans blowing. If it gets warm, that will just improve the 
impressiveness of the demonstration. Don't turn the fans on until 
people ask for it!


The window would have been OK but the sink was apparently more 
convenient (and besides, if it were spitting out the window, 
passersby might object).


If it's spitting, there would be more objections than that. Spitting 
is trivial to handle in ways that would be completely visible. It can 
simply spit into a jar. But it shouldn't be spitting at all, unless 
it's not properly designed.


The worry would be that it was designed to spit and thus to 
appear to be generating more heat than it actually was. More likely, 
though, they simply did not take care to prevent spitting.


I find Rossi's claim that pulling the hose up was dangerous to be 
evidence that it, at least sometimes, spits.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset


At 05:32 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

Also think about how you find yourself responding to my comment. Do 
you find yourself imagining that I have a motive,


You must have a motive but I can't imagine what it is.

(It never, in a million years, would have occurred to me that you 
were trying to embarrass anyone, BTW.  You don't do that sort of 
thing, not as far as I know.  It seems clear you're lecturing me 
about something, but I really don't know what.)


Thanks. A bad habit of mine.

I explore topics as they occur to me, and the particular topic here 
was the conflict between you and Jed. 'Nuff said?

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset


At 10:52 AM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

There is a classic demonstration, used to be 
common in high school physics labs: you boil 
water in a paper cup, over a flame, as I recall.


A paper cup!?


Yeah. I think one of my high school science 
teachers, the chemistry teacher as I recall, had 
a contract with Dixie to come up with science 
experiments using Dixie Cups, and this was one of 
them. There are lots of pages on the internet on 
this, 
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-50249.html 
is one that discusses it, with some experimental reports.


Please, folks, don't stick your hand in that 
invisible steam. It may only be at 100 degrees, 
but it's dangerous, it's carrying a lot of 
heat, which it will cheerfully transfer to your 
skin, in a flash. Maybe if you are *fast*, you 
wouldn't get burned, but I wouldn't advise trying it.


Neither would I, but that is what I have seen 
grizzled boiler room workers do. They don't hold 
their hands in the steam! They wave their hand 
through, quickly. The way a person can wave a 
finger through a the flame of a candle. If the 
steam is wet, droplets adhere to the skin and that hurts.


They do not do this with superheated steam, 
obviously. Only process steam a little above 100°C.


I have my own method, as well, of determining if 
a metal surface has possibly dangerous 60 cycle 
AC eletrical leakage currents. This will detect 
even pretty low leakage, below the dangerous 
level. I make sure my shoes aren't wet, nor am I 
touching any grounded metal, and I run the back 
of my fingers over the metal surface. If there is 
leakage, I can feel the vibration.


Used to be common with electrical appliances with 
no ground plug. Turn the plug around, it usually 
eliminated the effect. With polarized plugs, 
assuming that people wired the socket correctly, 
this became a non-problem. (except for those 
badly-wired sockets!). With grounding plugs, 
again, not a problem, assuming the ground is connected!


It's nice to know about the perceived vibration 
effect (it's probably due to electrical 
stimulation in the muscles of the fingers, just 
enough to be perceivable. If there is a dead 
short to a hot wire, it's still not painful. Long 
as I don't touch a ground somewhere!)

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset


At 02:19 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Another factor is that I have some unpublished information about 
this test, and about some other private tests. I do not have a huge 
amount of information, but enough to give me more confidence in the 
results. Stephen Lawrence does not have this information so 
naturally he is more skeptical than I am. That's reasonable.


I want to underscore this. It's pretty obvious, at this point, that 
skepticism about Rossi and the E-Cat is reasonable, no matter what 
Rossi says. Jed has additional information, and my experience with 
Jed is that he's likely sober about this.


But that's certainly not any kind of proof.

I'm rather turned off by the crap about Krivit and fake reporter. 
Rather, they have reacted very strongly, it seems, to some transient 
personal impressions, in the Levi interview, and from the -- harmless 
to this observer -- preliminary report by Krivit. The video by 
Krivit, I just reviewed a little. I see no attempt by Krivit there to 
be hard-nosed about what he was being shown. Knowing Krivit, in fact, 
I'm a little disappointed!


Ah, Mr. Rossi! So there is water in the hose, even if only a little, 
as you say. How much? Can we watch this thing for while, then, this 
time, you empty the hose into a bucket so we can see how much water 
accumulated in so many minutes. Can we have the hose empty into the 
bucket for a while? I know that people are interested in this 
question of water in the outlet hose, that is how much is only a little?


Let's see, may I mark the input water jug while we watch this thing 
for a time? Or measure the water level distance from the ground? Then 
we can pour in a measured amount of water to restore that original 
level, to see how much water was pumped through the system, as a 
visible confirmation in my video.


Are there variations in the input power, or does this thing operate 
at constant input power? Mind if I take an occasional picture of that meter?


Asking to see steam at the vent would have been too much for this 
set-up, I can easily see Rossi refusing it. But a close-up of the 
hose held at right angles to the camera, very close, so that the 
margin can be seen clearly, should have been possible. The point 
would have been to have the hose held firmly without it moving


Jed has nailed the basic problem here, that Rossi was just doing a 
presentation for an ordinary reporter, who frequently won't ask very 
technical questions. I can understand why Rossi would come to think 
that Krivit wasn't a real reporter, because Krivit, in a sense, 
knew too much. But I'd think Mats Lewan would also ask questions like this


In the Essen report we just saw here, Essen looked at the steam 
valve. My sense is that he saw it to be dry steam, or he'd have made 
a great fuss! At that point, there should be no flow out the hose at 
all, it should really be shut off with a valve, or it introduces a 
possible error.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset


At 04:38 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
The fact that Rossi has done what he claims is equally self-evident 
to me. The speculation about wet and dry steam is bunk. The second 
test proved that beyond any doubt. It is a waste of time even discussing it.


Jed might be right. However, in the absence of the kind of 
information that is needed to rule out steam quality issues, people 
are going to discuss it.


What I find offensive is Rossi's dismissal of questions and inquiries 
as being based in pseudoskepticism. There are grounds to be 
skeptical. After all, the implications are huge. You yourself stated 
that you were skeptical, until you heard this private information 
repeated, over time.


The rest of us were neither eye-witnesses, nor do we have that 
private information, except through you. I personally place a great 
deal of weight on it, because it comes from you. But I completely 
understand if others don't, just as I don't expect skeptics (real 
skeptics!) to fall down and believe in cold fusion because I say that 
the evidence is convincing, if reviewed carefully (which takes a lot of time!


Rather, it's my responsibility to present that evidence, clearly and 
cogently, if I want people to look at it. If I fail in that, it's my 
fault, not theirs.


I will also claim that it's the responsibility of the U.S. DoE to act 
on the recommendations of their own panels, both in 1989 and 2004, to 
fund research to answer the obvious questions. That should not depend 
on my political skill! Or that of the cold fusion community.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:


 The fact that Rossi has done what he claims is equally self-evident to me.
 The speculation about wet and dry steam is bunk. The second test proved that
 beyond any doubt. It is a waste of time even discussing it.


 Jed might be right. However, in the absence of the kind of information that
 is needed to rule out steam quality issues, people are going to discuss it.


As noted elsewhere, it turns out we can rule out steam quality issues, just
as Rossi claimed. I should have made that clear when I linked up to the
Delta Ohm site, and it also clear from the EK test. It would have helped if
Rossi had said to Krivit: The meter measures by mass, not volume. Look it
up. Instead he got upset that Krivit did not believe Galantini.

We should have looked it up. Krivit should have.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset


At 11:06 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:

The fact that Rossi has done what he claims is equally self-evident 
to me. The speculation about wet and dry steam is bunk. The second 
test proved that beyond any doubt. It is a waste of time even discussing it.



Jed might be right. However, in the absence of the kind of 
information that is needed to rule out steam quality issues, people 
are going to discuss it.



As noted elsewhere, it turns out we can rule out steam quality 
issues, just as Rossi claimed. I should have made that clear when I 
linked up to the Delta Ohm site, and it also clear from the EK 
test. It would have helped if Rossi had said to Krivit: The meter 
measures by mass, not volume. Look it up. Instead he got upset that 
Krivit did not believe Galantini.


We should have looked it up. Krivit should have.


Jed, I'm puzzled. I don't see any sign that the meter measures 
anything other than relative humidity (and temperature). relative 
humidity is a ratio, neither mass nor volume. It's a ratio between 
the water vapor content of air compared to the content of saturated 
air, which varies with temperature.


The meter isn't rated to measure humidity above 85%! I have no idea 
what these meters do with steam, it doesn't seem to be what they were 
designed to do. The probe will withstand 150 C., but all that means 
is that this temperature won't damage it, and, my guess, it will 
correctly measure temperature above 100 C. But what's it going to do 
with mist? Or a mixture of mist and live steam at the same 
temperature? My guess is that both would show maximum humidity of 100%


Anyone an expert on these?

What's Galantini's expertise? Does it cover this kind of measurement? 
Someone might know a great deal, but make a mistake about an 
instrument where they don't have extensive experience with it. 
Galantini's certification cited by Rossi was irrelevant, it gave no 
data at all, no measurement technique, it simply described the 
instrument he used.


I really sympathize with the skeptics here, there is so much bogosity 
presented as being unchallengeable truth.


I don't know that Galantini was wrong, I simply don't know what he 
did! And apparently asking about it is verboten.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

2011-06-19 Thread Rock_nj

I think the fact that Levi was caught telling a white lie about a report
that does not exist is certainly news since it brings into question Levi's
trustworthiness.  If he was caught lying about the existence of that
Galantini report, what else is he lying about?  If you read the comments
section of Steve Krivit's preliminary report blog, you'll see a comment by
Steve in which he says that Rossi said during an interview this week that
 there is no Galantini report.  Perhaps report and data were confused by
Levi, with the language barrier causing confusion?  If they would provide
the data regarding the steam measurements, this whole issue could be put to
rest.  I am beginning to wonder why we are even taking Rossi and Levi
seriously?  Big claims and no supporting credible data.  What category does
that put them in?

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Why Levi is upset is more evident in this exchange between Steven Krivit
 and
 Luigi Versaggi P.


 https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/cold-fusion-andrea-rossi-method/i-made-a-question-to-steven-krivit/235485236468276


 If I recall correctly someone wrote on the vortex list back in feburary or
 march
 that Galantini never wrote a report, so that fact is not news. Steven
 Kirvit managed to catch Levi uttering a 'white lie' to *him*. Is that fact
 news?



 Harry

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset




On 11-06-18 10:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:


Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

On 11-06-18 09:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert.  Jed is right
about sparging the steam.

Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway?  There
are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow.

OK, you asked for it, somebody should say it.  We've all been dancing around
it, but it hasn't quite been said in so many words, so here it is:

It's a lot easier to produce phony results which look good when you do it with
a phase change of this sort.  Flow calorimetry with single-phase water is a lot
harder to fool.

There, I said it, now you can claim I'm being pathologically skeptical and
psychotically paranoid -- and I'll apologize profusely and eat every word of it,
when ... and if ... this thing is finally either REPLICATED or COMMERCIALIZED. 
But right now, IMO it smells, and it's smelled all along, and smelly stuff

hardly ever turns out to be pure gold.



If you were Rossi the businessman, and you knew your device has turned water
into steam for short periods of time without any input power, wouldn't you treat
the steam quality issue as a minor concern?



You're apparently speculating as to what Rossi might have been thinking 
in an effort to explain the obvious fact that  he structured the 
experiment in a way that would make it easy to obfuscate the output 
power, and then lied about the steam quality to do just that.


Perhaps your defense of him is right, and perhaps it's wrong -- I can't 
read his mind, and have no interest in trying.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:

Coupled with the admission that the steam was wet (which has seemed pretty
 obvious to me for quite a while, though, as I've said before, I'm no expert)
 this makes Galantini's assertions about steam look pretty unreliable.


1. I do not see them admitting any such thing.

2. It cannot be obvious to you because you were not there and you have not
used instruments or done tests to measure the enthalpy of the steam. Yes,
anyone can see that the short video uploaded recently shows wet steam, but
that was probably far away from the machine, and the steam was probably
cooled. You have to measure a short distance from the reactor core, which is
what Galantini reportedly did.

3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that the
first test was right plus or minus ~10%. The speculation here that the steam
might have had 20 times less enthalpy than claimed (or 1000 times less) is
preposterous and totally unfounded. It is a shame that details about the
second test have not been released, but there is no reason to doubt these
results are real.

Rossi does not wish to make an effort to convince people his machine is
real. He has *said that*, repeatedly. When I asked for the opportunity to go
there and test the steam quality, and also to run more liquid phase flow
calorimetry, he firmly turned me down. He did not want me to do that.
Perhaps this is because he does not trust that I have sufficient expertise.
But I don't think that's the reason. I think he would have told me: you are
not qualified. He is a very frank.He said emphatically he wants no more
tests before the 1 MW demonstration. I think that policy is ill-advised. I
do not understand it. But it is his decision, and I suppose he has his
reasons.

He also said he is too busy to do a test with my instruments. That is
understandable. It takes all day. It is more involved than the quick
show-and-tell demonstration he did for Krivit. I have no problem being told:
I cannot spare a whole day to help you.

I do not know what Krivit expected to see or whether he discussed the agenda
before he left. Frankly, if he wanted to see reports from Levi or Galantini,
he should have asked for those reports before buying the airplane ticket. As
I said, I always try to learn what it is I will do before I set off on a
trip. Rossi told me he would only be willing to do the kind of quick
demonstration he did for Krivit. I did not wish to go all the way to Italy
to see that. I told Rossi no thank you, and there were no hard feelings. If
people do not wish to share data, there is no point to being
confrontational. In my case, there is no point to going.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:


  Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway?  There
  are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow.
 

 I think Levi and Rossi did the private flow test in feburary to really
 convince
 themselves, and not to the arm chair skeptics, that their initial steam
 tests
 were adequate.


That's right. That is my impression of why they did that. They said that the
second test proves the first one was right. I agree.

As I said, I was hoping they would publish a better description of that
test, including details such as the type of flow meter and graphs of the
data. I was expecting they would. It is disappointing that they have not.
Their preliminary report was fine as far as it went, but I wish they had
published more. They may yet do that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset


Ooops, overlooked something in your message.

On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that 
the first test was right


No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented.  
It was viewed, in private, by exactly the people whose earlier results 
I'm suspicious of, and they told us everything is fine, don't worry.


That's like a poker game where nobody has to show their cards, they just 
state what they have and everyone believes them.  The honor system 
isn't used in poker, and it doesn't get you very far in science, either.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:

 1. I do not see them admitting any such thing.

  2. It cannot be obvious to you because you were not there and you have
 not used instruments or done tests to measure the enthalpy of the steam.


 It was obvious from the output temperature curves and description of the
 experiment.


It cannot be that obvious, since the physicists at U. Bologna disagree.
Those people may be wrong but they are not amateurs or fools.

An independent expert analysis of these temperatures was recently published
showing that the steam was most dry, based on the temperatures alone. I
don't recall where that analysis is . . . Maybe 22passi?



 I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to
 admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere
 of pressure.


Oh come now. Don't make false accusations. I admitted fully and frankly that
I made a mistake there. I always do. I have many faults, but refusing to
admit mistakes is not among them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:


 3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that the
 first test was right


 No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented.


I said that too. Only a few details were released. If you believe these
details, then the second test conclusively confirmed the first. If you don't
believe those few details then obviously you cannot agree with the
conclusions.

I heard a few more details about the test than have been released, so I have
somewhat more confidence. I was expecting they would publish all that they
told me, and more.  As I said, I am disappointed they have not. It is
unprofessional.


 It was viewed, in private, by exactly the people whose earlier results I'm
 suspicious of, and they told us everything is fine, don't worry.


You can be suspicious of the results, but you have no reason to be
suspicious of the people themselves. That is to say, you might suspect they
are mistaken, but you have no reason to think they are lying. I don't
anyway. Given the simplicity of liquid phase flow calorimetry there is no
reason to doubt they got that right.



 That's like a poker game where nobody has to show their cards, they just
 state what they have and everyone believes them.


In poker, you do not have to show your card if everyone else folds. That's
how it works in industrial RD as well.



  The honor system isn't used in poker, and it doesn't get you very far in
 science, either.


This is not exactly science. It is more like industrial RD, where the rules
are different. That's unfortunate, but that's the way things are.

Fortunately, Rossi is forging ahead with development and with cooperation
the Defkalion, so even though this is not academic science, we are likely to
learn the full details and we are likely to see convincing proof eventually.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset




On 11-06-19 12:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:


1. I do not see them admitting any such thing.

2. It cannot be obvious to you because you were not there and
you have not used instruments or done tests to measure the
enthalpy of the steam.


It was obvious from the output temperature curves and description
of the experiment.


It cannot be that obvious, since the physicists at U. Bologna 
disagree. Those people may be wrong but they are not amateurs or fools.


An independent expert analysis of these temperatures was recently 
published showing that the steam was most dry, based on the 
temperatures alone. I don't recall where that analysis is . . . Maybe 
22passi?


I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble
getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher
than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure.


Oh come now. Don't make false accusations. I admitted fully and 
frankly that I made a mistake there.


It's not a false accusation.  Getting that admission was like pulling 
teeth, and even then it was a qualified admission.


Don't make me search the archives to prove it.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset




On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:

Coupled with the admission that the steam was wet (which has
seemed pretty obvious to me for quite a while, though, as I've
said before, I'm no expert) this makes Galantini's assertions
about steam look pretty unreliable.


1. I do not see them admitting any such thing.

2. It cannot be obvious to you because you were not there and you 
have not used instruments or done tests to measure the enthalpy of the 
steam.


It was obvious from the output temperature curves and description of the 
experiment.


I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you 
to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 
atmosphere of pressure.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

2011-06-19 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2011-06-19 02:37, Harry Veeder wrote:


If I recall correctly someone wrote on the vortex list back in feburary or march
that Galantini never wrote a report, so that fact is not news. Steven
Kirvit managed to catch Levi uttering a 'white lie' to *him*. Is that fact
news?


Try read the following comment by Rossi. It might explain what happened. 
Somehow I missed it.


* * *

Andrea Rossi
June 18th, 2011 at 4:02 AM
“Rossi Responds to Scrutiny of his Claims”:
The content of water in steam is always measured in mass, not in volume, 
because psychrometers work is based on the heat necessary to the 
evaporation ow residual water, and the heat is given in Joule/g, wherein 
g means grams. Krivit is not convinced only because has not the 
elementary knowledge of the physics involved.


He had all the necessary explications from us, just did not (or wanted 
not) to understand. By the way: in a statement he released further, he 
said that while Prof. Levi told him there was a report about this issue, 
I said in the interview that there was not a report about this issue. 
This is a translation problem: with the term “report”
I mean an extensive paper, while Prof. Levi referred to the simple 
communication that we received from the specialist who made the 
measurement, in which there were just the results. This is a 
misunderstanding, not a contradiction.


Warm Regards,
A.R.

* * *

By the way, there are two new blogposts on New Energy Times. I found the 
message by Rossi above in the first link below:


http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/19/rossis-responses-to-preliminary-report/
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/19/levis-response-to-preliminary-report/

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset


At 10:57 PM 6/18/2011, Harry Veeder wrote:
If you were Rossi the businessman, and you knew your device has 
turned water into steam for short periods of time without any input 
power, wouldn't you treat the steam quality issue as a minor concern? Harry


Sure, I might, but I would also understand why others wouldn't be 
convinced by my mere say-so. My own conclusion is that Rossi was 
conflicted about the demonstration. If what he's got is real, and 
given various situations, I suspect he did not want to do a demo at 
all, too dangerous, for lots of reasons.


So he did a half-assed demo.

Does he have the ... whatever it takes ... to simply admit that, to 
say, I understand that reasonable skeptics won't be convinced by 
what they have seen, and I apologize for my own irritation and 
intemperate remarks. I assure you all that it will become clear in 
October. Until then, we'll just have to sit with this.


Even if he's thinking:

You guys can go  yourselves.

Or not.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset




On 11-06-19 12:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:

That's like a poker game where nobody has to show their cards,
they just state what they have and everyone believes them.


In poker, you do not have to show your card if everyone else folds.


Sometimes, you do, even then:  If you opened the betting, you need to 
show openers, which is typically a pair of jacks or better.  (That's 
in straight and draw poker, of course. Hold 'em and stud may be a little 
different.)


Nobody gets a free ride, and nothing is done on trust.


Fortunately, Rossi is forging ahead with development and with 
cooperation the Defkalion, so even though this is not academic 
science, we are likely to learn the full details and we are likely to 
see convincing proof eventually.


Yes.  And absolutely nothing I say here has the power to either advance 
or retard that development.  For good or for ill, things have gone far 
too far for any little argument on this list to derail them.


I'd like to add something else, as well.

Jed, I have an awful lot of respect for you.  The work you've done for 
the field of LENR has been awesome, and I think it has made a 
substantial difference.  Furthermore, you are enormously knowledgeable, 
and in many situations I'm willing to treat your opinions as something 
approaching proof.


I feel very uncomfortable arguing with you, particularly when the 
subject is contentious.


In this case, you seem to be completely convinced of the veracity of the 
claims which have been made.  Obviously, I'm not so convinced.  However, 
I really don't want to get into a nasty spat over it, with claims of 
obvious and absurdity escalating into assertions of blindness, 
ignorance, and idiocy.  So I should probably just Cool It at this 
point, and say I hope Rossi's device really does work as claimed.


If it all turns out well I'll certainly post an apology for having doubted!

RE: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

2011-06-19 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

From Andrea Rossi:

 June 18th, 2011 at 4:02 AM
  ...  By the way: in a statement he released further, he [Krivit]
 said that while Prof. Levi told him there was a report about this issue,
 I said in the interview that there was not a report about this issue.
 This is a translation problem: with the term report
 I mean an extensive paper, while Prof. Levi referred to the simple
 communication that we received from the specialist who made the
 measurement, in which there were just the results. This is a
 misunderstanding, not a contradiction.
 
 Warm Regards,
 A.R.



Sunday's Sermon

These kinds of misinterpretations remind me of something D. Adams once wrote
about:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

G'Gugvuntts and Vl'hurgs

Two species which existed in the distant past, a very great distance from
the Milky Way galaxy. The G'Gugvuntt were enemies of the Vl'hurgs, and these
strange and warlike beings are on the brink of an interstellar war, because
of an insult uttered by the G'Gugvuntt leader to the mother of the Vl'hurg
leader. Resplendent in their black-jeweled battle shorts, they were meeting
for the last time, and a dreadful silence filled the air as the Vl'hurg
leader was challenging the G'Gugvuntt leader to retract the insult. At the
precise moment, the phrase I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with
my lifestyle (muttered by Arthur Dent to himself, which for some strange
reason was carried by a freak wormhole in space back in time to the farthest
regions of the universe where the G'Gugvuntts and the Vl'hurgs lived) filled
the air over the conference table, which in the Vl'hurg tongue was the most
dreadful insult imaginable. It left them no choice but to declare war on the
G'Gugvuntts, which went on for a few thousand years and decimated their
entire galaxy.

After millennia of battle the surviving G'Gugvuntt and Vl'hurg realised what
had actually happened, and joined forces to attack the Milky Way in
retaliation. They crossed vast reaches of space in a journey lasting
thousands of years before reaching their target where they attacked the
first planet they encountered, Earth. Due to a terrible miscalculation of
scale the entire battle fleet was swallowed by a small dog. The Hitchhiker's
Guide to the Galaxy states that this sort of thing happens all the time.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_races_and_species_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s
_Guide_to_the_Galaxy

I hope the latest feud we bear witness to doesn't last that long! ;-)

/Sunday's Sermon

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset


At 11:39 AM 6/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
He is a very frank.He said emphatically he wants no more tests 
before the 1 MW demonstration. I think that policy is ill-advised. I 
do not understand it. But it is his decision, and I suppose he has his reasons.


Well, there are two possible reasons that I can see.
1. It's a fake. Obvious possible reason.
2. It's real. He doesn't want competition to be seriously funded, so 
he doesn't want the reality to be clearly demonstrated.


Having been, myself, contacted by a person working with a major think 
tank, that advises government and large corporations re energy policy 
and technology, I know that there is interest, and if the evidence 
available were not tainted by appearances that seem to be actively 
being created by Rossi, if we assume he is intelligent -- which I 
think is the case -- the money would start flowing, very, very rapidly.


Rossi, in what he states, has it completely backwards. If the motive 
were to discredit him, it would not be originating with 
competitors, not within the field, but from competitors outside the 
field. Rossi has blown the lid off of the cold fusion funding 
situation, and may have realized that, and so is truly trying to 
increase skepticism. It might even work.


He also said he is too busy to do a test with my instruments. That 
is understandable. It takes all day. It is more involved than the 
quick show-and-tell demonstration he did for Krivit. I have no 
problem being told: I cannot spare a whole day to help you.


I do not know what Krivit expected to see or whether he discussed 
the agenda before he left. Frankly, if he wanted to see reports from 
Levi or Galantini, he should have asked for those reports before 
buying the airplane ticket. As I said, I always try to learn what it 
is I will do before I set off on a trip. Rossi told me he would only 
be willing to do the kind of quick demonstration he did for Krivit. 
I did not wish to go all the way to Italy to see that. I told Rossi 
no thank you, and there were no hard feelings. If people do not wish 
to share data, there is no point to being confrontational. In my 
case, there is no point to going.


Krivit has a completely different motive. He can't be the intrepid 
investigative reporter that is the image he has constructed, with 
years of effort, and ignore this story. He had to go.


Krivit often manages to create stories that are about him. Remember 
his visit to Fleischmann, where, he alleged, a representative of 
Dardik wouldn't allow him to talk to Fleischmann as scheduled? Krivit 
turned an ordinary setback, must happen to journalists all the time, 
into the whole story, replete with Krivit's speculations and thought 
processes, betraying his own bias.


This situation is not quite the same, however. I don't think that 
Krivit anticipated the hostile response, I suspect he stumbled into it.


I'm not convinced that he could have done it better. Maybe, but it 
would have taken extraordinary skill and tact. If Krivit wants to 
continue his career as investigative journalist, I'd suggest he learn 
the skills. The story has to become more important than yourself.


(I no way am I suggesting that Krivit should not have asked about 
steam quality. It was the obvious question. However, in theory, it 
should have been possible to ask the question in such a way as to 
massage Levi's ego, instead of tromping on it. Help us out, 
Professor Levi, we are trying to understand this question. ... I 
don't understand this explanation, please guide me through this, I'm 
just an amateur, compared to your sophistication. I need to explain 
this to my readers, who won't have the advantage of your presence, 
so, while I am, of course, convinced, based on your obvious and deep 
personal integrity, I need to lay it out in detail.)


Or something like that. I'm not claiming that this is easy. No 
profession is easy, is it?

At 08:37 PM 6/18/2011, you wrote:
Why Levi is upset is more evident in this
exchange between Steven Krivit and Luigi
Versaggi P.
https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/cold-fusion-andrea-rossi-method/i-made-a-question-to-steven-krivit/235485236468276
If I recall correctly someone wrote on the
vortex list back in feburary or march that
Galantini never wrote a report, so that fact is
not news. Steven Kirvit managed to catch Levi
uttering a 'white lie' to *him*. Is that fact news? Harry

Here is Krivit's report, copied in its entirety for commentary and criticism:

Steven B. Krivit says:

June 18, 2011 at 04:55

Caro Luigi,

Many of my readers were asking me for a report.
My quick report is based on the facts that I
have been able to obtain as of this point in
time. There is nothing conclusive about my quick
report and people would have been in gross error
to assume any kind of conclusion based on that quick report alone.

This was my impression also. I could not tell
from the preliminary report what kind of stand
Krivit was going to take on the steam issue. The
vehement attacks from Levi and Rossi complicate the issue.

As you know, I have identified a crucial factor
which could, repeat, could have an immense
bearing on the validity and viability of the
E-Cat. I certainly hope for the best for the
E-Cat but Levi and Rossis responses today seem
to be more along the lines of attacking me
personally rather than clearly explaining and
providing support for this crucial factor.

It may be a crucial factor, or it may be
irrelevant. It is crucial in terms of
understanding the demonstrations, which are, in
the end, irrelevant, compared to what Rossi --
and apparently others -- are asserting. What we
know is that, from the data we have, that is
publically available in witnessed demonstrations,
we don't know actual generated energy. We need
that steam quality data, and it would need to be
conclusive, or the demonstration simply wasn't.

At least, it was not a simple demonstration, as
simple as it might have appeared, if not for this issue.

On Wednesday, Levi had assured me that the steam
measurements were made by mass, not by volume.
At that time, I asked Levi to help me understand
how this measurement was done by mass so I could
put the issue to rest and dismiss it as an invalid critique, as I told Levi.

Right. The proper approach. Help me understand.

But Levi could not explain the measurement
process to me in any detail, though he did draw
me a rough sketch of where Galantini placed the
probe. Instead, Levi told me that Galantini was the expert in the subject.

Great. So, then, we'd want Galantini's report, of
course. What did the expert say?

He told me that Galantini had prepared a report
with the details. I asked Levi to send me the
report so I had something to give to readers
that would support Levis claim. With such
confirmation, the news might have been very
positive. On Wednesday, Levi agreed to send me the report.

Which may have meant, I'll try to get one from
Galantini. See, Levi may have a *verbal* report
from Galantini. It might be quite informal, and
Galantini may not have hedged it with all the
qualifications that a true expert would put in,
in a formal written report on which his future reputation might depend.

Earlier on Wednesday morning however, Rossi,
unbeknownst to Levi, told me in my interview
with him, that Galantini never wrote a report.
So we have some serious contradictions here on a very serious factor.

Well, there you go again, Steve. Basic rule:
assume that there is a harmonizing truth
underneath apparently contradictory testimony. If
nobody is actually lying, this is often the case.
So what could be the truth here? First of all,
did Levi tell you that Galantini submitted a
written report? What if Galantini had written a
report, perhaps a draft, and Levi saw it or knows
that it exists. And Rossi does not. The procedure
here would be to start with a rebuttable
assumption that all testimony is true, a basic
common-law principle. A harmonizing
interpretation, then, becomes the basis for more
detailed questions attempting to confirm what becomes a hypothesis.

The testimony only becomes contradictory if we
assume several things: that both Levi and Rossi
are fully cognizant of all the details, that they
understood the question, that they both answered
completely, etc. You are correct that apparent
contradiction forms the basis for further
questions, but I suggest avoiding making the
contradiction the story, unless you really get stuck there.

The bottom line, in fact: you don't have a report
from Galantini. That, you know, for certain.

Levi also agreed on Wednesday to send me data or
a report to support the sub-vapor experiment
from Feb. 10-11. This data or report, as well,
would have brought us all great news. Now,
sadly, Levi says he will not send me anything I have asked for.

Again, that a

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset


At 11:57 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting 
you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C 
at 1 atmosphere of pressure.


Stephen, perhaps you are making the same mistake here, 
misunderstanding what's being said. It's possible to have steam at 
higher than 100 C, but it would take post-generation heating.


That is, if you are generating steam by boiling water, the steam is 
evolved at the boiling point. There is a classic demonstration, used 
to be common in high school physics labs: you boil water in a paper 
cup, over a flame, as I recall. The water in the cup simply cannot go 
above the boiling point, and remain water. When it is vaporized it 
absorbs, from the state change, a huge amount of heat, thus, in 
practice, you can use boiling water to calibrate a thermometer. (And 
ice-water, at the other end of the Centigrade scale. Mixed phase in 
both situations.)


So to reach higher than 100 C, the steam would have to be further 
heated, not through heating of the water, but of the steam directly.


Further, isn't the idea here that there is water in the exhaust, that 
the steam is wet? Dry steam hotter than 100 C is definitely possible 
(with post-generating heating). But wet steam presents a problem. The 
hotter the steam, the more rapidly the water would evaporate, so the 
less water there could be, it would be transient. It's hard to 
imagine an arrangement in this situation where the water remains cool 
while the steam is heated above boiling.


If the water is as fine droplets, forget it. It would vanish almost 
immediately if the temperature is higher than the boiling point, 
cooling the steam, until the water were entirely vaporized and the 
steam dry, or the steam is cooled to the boiling point.


I can understand why boiling water is used as a measure of energy, 
it's pretty simple, *if measures are taken to measure the water 
content. If the exit path for the steam is directly from the device 
into the air, with no water leaving (as with an ordinary teakettle!), 
the steam will be dry, so measuring the mass of water evaporated is a 
simple and clean demonstration, allowing easy calculation of energy 
evolved (aside from other losses, as through radiation or convection 
off of the device).


My guess, though, the Rossi devices would spit water. That could be 
avoided by redesign, and this may be what they have done. It would 
spit water if the manner of heating, inside, allowed pockets of steam 
to be trapped, with water blocking the exist path, so the water would 
be blown out. Basically, gravity could be used to keep the water in 
the bottom of the cell, with the steam rising out the top. But the 
E-Cat appears to have a horizontal design. So that it would spit 
isn't terribly surprising. This might be avoided by simply tipping 
the thing a little, so that the exit tube is the highest point 
inside, and bubbles of steam rising from anywhere inside would rise 
directly to that point, with no place for them to be trapped.


Once the thing doesn't spit, there is no need for the tube to the 
sink, nor any need to collect water, since there would be no water 
coming out at any point. Does your tea kettle spit water at you? I 
didn't think so!


The device, as it was powered up, would start to boil water, filling 
the output tube with steam. The steam will rapidly transfer heat to 
the output tube until it is also at the boiling point,  and that 
condensed water would drain back into the heating chamber. When the 
exit tube reaches the boiling temperature, at that time, true dry 
steam would start coming out, which is invisible. Put a whistle on 
the thing, with a narrow output opening! You could even calibrate the 
whistle to provide an operating measure of energy generation rate. 
(Thanks to a pseudoskeptic who was fond of steampunk for that 
suggestion, Barry Kort.) In any case, if the opening is narrow, you'd 
see that the steam is invisible as it comes out, guaranteeing that it 
is dry, it would only become visible a short distance from the 
opening, as it cools from contact with the air and forms a steam cloud.


Please, folks, don't stick your hand in that invisible steam. It may 
only be at 100 degrees, but it's dangerous, it's carrying a lot of 
heat, which it will cheerfully transfer to your skin, in a flash. 
Maybe if you are *fast*, you wouldn't get burned, but I wouldn't 
advise trying it. I have no problem with touching something at 100 
degrees, or quite a bit hotter, if it isn't live steam! It's easy to 
be fast enough. If I think it's really hot, I might lick my finger 
first! The steam formation will protect my skin, as long as I don't 
leave the finger, and the hiss tells me it's above boiling. Hey, hiss. Snake!


(I've also watched fire-walkers. Yes, folks, people actually do walk 
on hot coals. It probably has to do with a protective layer of water 
vapor that forms under the

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset


At 12:03 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

Ooops, overlooked something in your message.

On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed 
that the first test was right


No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented.


Lost performative here. That's why Stephen and Jed are talking past 
each other. Jed means confirmed for Levi and Rossi, Stephen means 
didn't confirm for the rest of us. Basically, confirmed is an 
interpretation, not a fact. Ever. Since it is meaning supplied, who 
supplies the meaning is crucial.


And, of course, if anyone considers Levi's testimony adequate, it 
confirmed it for them


Personally, I consider Levi's testimony adequate to establish a 
rebuttable presumption that the effect is real. But there are lots of 
ways for this to go south. I've mentioned some before. Based on 
Levi's testimony, I'd invest a modest amount in this, should there be 
an opportunity, I'd place a bet on it, so to speak, but that would 
depend on the offered odds! I would not advise investing a few 
hundred million dollars on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony 
of Rossi and Levi. Clear about where I stand?


It was viewed, in private, by exactly the people whose earlier 
results I'm suspicious of, and they told us everything is fine, don't worry.


You are repeating the obvious. Stephen.

That's like a poker game where nobody has to show their cards, they 
just state what they have and everyone believes them.  The honor 
system isn't used in poker, and it doesn't get you very far in 
science, either.


But this isn't science. You want to do science, Stephen, you'll have 
to actually get your hands dirty, most likely. Very little of it is 
done by yakking on a mailing list.


Science doesn't give a hoot about whether or not Rossi is honorable 
or not. Yes, if we have reason to doubt the testimony of someone, we 
may deprecate it, but the error would be in assuming that this is a 
proof of falsehood. It is not. Not ever. Otherwise we enter the 
territory of paradox.


This isn't a game where nobody has to show their cards. First of 
all, Stephen, who's playing the game? How is it defined who wins? 
What's the game being played?


From my perspective, different players may be playing different 
games. Rossi is not playing the game of science, that's obvious. He 
seems to be playing a number of games, the most obvious of which he 
wins if he makes a pile of money. And what you think of him, and what 
I think of him, has *nothing* to do with his game.


He's pretty explicit about this, so, in that sense, he's quite 
honest. If he's a fraud, faking all this, it's another story. I 
rather doubt it, but I do know history, and it's happened before. 
Inventor believes he is *close* to a commercial application, but 
needs more money to finish up the work. So, to raise the money, he 
fudges a demonstration, he imagines it will be harmless.


If he was right, and if he's able to remedy the defects, he would be, 
perhaps, vindicated. But it has happened that the defect wasn't 
remediable, and the fraud was -- sometimes -- exposed. Sometimes the 
inventor died and everyone was left wondering what the hell happened. 
And there are, then, endless possibilities for conspiracy theories, etc


I don't think that will be the end here, because NiH is being 
intensively investigated now, that's been one of Rossi's genuine 
accomplishments. Still, if his secret catalyst turns out to be 
essential and is not independently discovered, there could be a 
problem. I'm hoping that there has been enough disclosure of his 
process that, should something happen to him, it will come out, but I 
have no idea if this is the case.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset




On 11-06-19 04:38 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

At 11:57 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting 
you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 
1 atmosphere of pressure.


Stephen, perhaps you are making the same mistake here, 
misunderstanding what's being said.


?  What point did I miss ?

It's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C, but it would take 
post-generation heating.


Obviously.  It boils at 100C, and to make it hotter than that, you need 
to heat it some more.


I'm sorry, but I seem to have totally missed the point of what follows.  
It appears to be a rehash of all that's been said already regarding 
steam.  Certainly there's nothing to disagree with in it (save one item 
I flagged), but I don't understand what point you were trying to make.


BTW regarding fire walkers, part of the trick may be something Lawrence 
was made to say in the film Lawrence of Arabia:  The 'trick' is not 
caring that it hurts.





That is, if you are generating steam by boiling water, the steam is 
evolved at the boiling point. There is a classic demonstration, used 
to be common in high school physics labs: you boil water in a paper 
cup, over a flame, as I recall. The water in the cup simply cannot go 
above the boiling point, and remain water. When it is vaporized it 
absorbs, from the state change, a huge amount of heat, thus, in 
practice, you can use boiling water to calibrate a thermometer. (And 
ice-water, at the other end of the Centigrade scale. Mixed phase in 
both situations.)


So to reach higher than 100 C, the steam would have to be further 
heated, not through heating of the water, but of the steam directly.


Further, isn't the idea here that there is water in the exhaust, that 
the steam is wet? Dry steam hotter than 100 C is definitely possible 
(with post-generating heating). But wet steam presents a problem. The 
hotter the steam, the more rapidly the water would evaporate, so the 
less water there could be, it would be transient. It's hard to imagine 
an arrangement in this situation where the water remains cool while 
the steam is heated above boiling.


If the water is as fine droplets, forget it. It would vanish almost 
immediately if the temperature is higher than the boiling point, 
cooling the steam, until the water were entirely vaporized and the 
steam dry, or the steam is cooled to the boiling point.


I can understand why boiling water is used as a measure of energy, 
it's pretty simple, *if measures are taken to measure the water 
content. If the exit path for the steam is directly from the device 
into the air, with no water leaving (as with an ordinary teakettle!), 
the steam will be dry, so measuring the mass of water evaporated is a 
simple and clean demonstration, allowing easy calculation of energy 
evolved (aside from other losses, as through radiation or convection 
off of the device).


My guess, though, the Rossi devices would spit water. That could be 
avoided by redesign, and this may be what they have done. It would 
spit water if the manner of heating, inside, allowed pockets of steam 
to be trapped, with water blocking the exist path, so the water would 
be blown out. Basically, gravity could be used to keep the water in 
the bottom of the cell, with the steam rising out the top. But the 
E-Cat appears to have a horizontal design. So that it would spit isn't 
terribly surprising. This might be avoided by simply tipping the thing 
a little, so that the exit tube is the highest point inside, and 
bubbles of steam rising from anywhere inside would rise directly to 
that point, with no place for them to be trapped.


Once the thing doesn't spit, there is no need for the tube to the 
sink, nor any need to collect water, since there would be no water 
coming out at any point.


There is a need, actually.  It's generating so much heat (10 kW + ) that 
it would rapidly turn the lab into a sauna if it weren't vented 
someplace.  Stuffing the hose down the sink dumps the heat, not just the 
water.


The window would have been OK but the sink was apparently more 
convenient (and besides, if it were spitting out the window, passersby 
might object).




Does your tea kettle spit water at you? I didn't think so!

The device, as it was powered up, would start to boil water, filling 
the output tube with steam. The steam will rapidly transfer heat to 
the output tube until it is also at the boiling point,  and that 
condensed water would drain back into the heating chamber. When the 
exit tube reaches the boiling temperature, at that time, true dry 
steam would start coming out, which is invisible. Put a whistle on the 
thing, with a narrow output opening! You could even calibrate the 
whistle to provide an operating measure of energy generation rate. 
(Thanks to a pseudoskeptic who was fond of steampunk for that 
suggestion, Barry Kort.) In any case, if the opening is

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset


At 12:09 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble 
getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher 
than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure.



Oh come now. Don't make false accusations. I admitted fully and 
frankly that I made a mistake there.


It's not a false accusation.  Getting that admission was like 
pulling teeth, and even then it was a qualified admission.


Don't make me search the archives to prove it.


Okay, Stephen, he won't, perhaps. But I will. But, first, what are 
you trying to prove? Be specific, very specific. Let me give you a 
hint: if you are trying to prove your *story, i.e., like pulling 
teeth, you are going to have, shall we say, some difficulty. That's 
not what happened, unless you have some teeth that were pulled. Even 
then, connecting the teeth you, or someone, lost, with what Rothwell 
wrote, could be difficult, eh?


I had enough trouble is a story about yourself, not about Rothwell. 
These are simple distinctions, and until you get them, you are going 
to get in lots of arguments like this, over completely useless stuff, 
that gain you nothing.


Are you aware, Stephen, that there is no clear contradiction between 
your statement and that of Jed? Yet it seems you think there is. I 
could parse this, but why don't you try to do it yourself, first, 
before you undertake that search of the archives. What's the actual issue here?


What I've seen from your comments is that you presented the issue in 
an incomplete manner. It is, indeed, possible to have steam at 
higher than 100 C, but under what conditions? Were those conditions 
relevant to those of the demonstration in question?


So if Jed answered within the confines of the experimental 
conditions, you could then get him with an error. Think about it.


Also think about how you find yourself responding to my comment. Do 
you find yourself imagining that I have a motive, perhaps to 
humiliate and embarrass you? I can tell you that my motive is the 
opposite, actually, but what is your instinct here? Authenticity matters.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset