subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:a long paper about and mainly against the E\-cat"

Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:


 You cite the temperature as evidence, but the temperature actually
 contradicts full vaporization.
 All of this has been explained succinctly ad nauseum, so please do not ask
 for any details on it


I do not need any details. As I mentioned, every expert in steam I have
consulted with says this is bullshit.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:


 You cite the temperature as evidence, but the temperature actually
 contradicts full vaporization.
 All of this has been explained succinctly ad nauseum, so please do not
 ask for any details on it


 I do not need any details. As I mentioned, every expert in steam I have
 consulted with says this is bullshit.


Because you know how to pick experts to consult.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Here is another comment from Mats Lewan

Hi Mary (Jed’s in CC again),

What I saw inside the Ecat is more or less what I published and what my
photos from the inside showed – a block covered with flanges of heat
exchanger type, I believe I said approximately 30x30x30 cm. There’s a photo
from above where you can see cable and gas feedthroughs from the outside
going into this block, which was bolted to the enclosing. Rossi told us
that beneath the flanges there was supposedly a block of three reactor
chambers, each 20x20x1 cm, enclosed by 4 cm shielding – I think he said
lead. That is possible, as is of course any other object of that size.

In theory I suppose he could have removed the flanges and the shielding to
show the reactors, but that would probably have taken some time.

As for energy storing I believe that has been clearly shown not to be a
possible explanation in itself. You simply would need an additional heat
source inside to have water boiling after 4 hours with cold water added
continuously (I heard and felt the water boiling), hot water leaking and an
external surface still at 60-85 degrees centigrade (I measured that with my
own thermometer).

A blank calibration poses some problems as once you have run the reactor
with hydrogen, and that had certainly been made previously, you always have
hydrogen loaded in the nickel even without pressure (if that is what’s
inside) and because of that you cannot exclude that the reaction starts (if
there’s a reaction). In any case a blank test wouldn’t exclude a fraud as
you in theory could choose not to start the magic heat producing fraud
technology in the blank test and then start it in the ‘real’ test. In that
sense a blank test wouldn’t change anything.

But all sorts of improvements could of course have been made in the
measurements. Lots of them. They have been pointed out several times. Just
to have the thermocouples in contact with the water flow, have them well
calibrated before the test, and have data logged on an sd-card in the
display unit would have been a fundamental improvement.

Possible explanations as to why Rossi didn’t do this have all been
presented – either he’s sloppy, either he wants to hide a fraud, or he’s
basically not interesting in doing a proper test in order not to reveal too
much. We cannot prove neither of them at this point.

And at this point there’s not much more we can do but wait for more proof
in one way or another.

I suppose you have seen the analyses of October 6 by Heffner, Higgins and
Roberson:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3295411.ece

Roberson has made an updated version but I haven’t had time to publish it
yet on the web.

Kind Regards,

Mats

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Here is another comment from Mats Lewan

 As for energy storing I believe that has been clearly shown not to be a
 possible explanation in itself.You simply would need an additional heat
 source inside to have water boiling after 4 hours with cold water added
 continuously (I heard and felt the water boiling), hot water leaking and an
 external surface still at 60-85 degrees centigrade (I measured that with my
 own thermometer).


It's not clear to me. Ten or 20 kg of firebrick heated to 1000C could
produce a kW for 3.5 hours. And that could have been hidden in that 100-kg
device. And that's enough to heat the water coming in to boiling. At 60C,
with low emissivity foil (below 10%), it would only radiate 50 W or so.

And phase-change storage (molten lead, or some other compounds) gives much
higher storage density still.

But it should be enough to dismiss the demonstration if the possibility of
storage is even within an order of magnitude.


 A blank calibration poses some problems as once you have run the reactor
 with hydrogen, and that had certainly been made previously, you always have
 hydrogen loaded in the nickel even without pressure (if that is what’s
 inside) and because of that you cannot exclude that the reaction starts (if
 there’s a reaction). In any case a blank test wouldn’t exclude a fraud as
 you in theory could choose not to start the magic heat producing fraud
 technology in the blank test and then start it in the ‘real’ test. In that
 sense a blank test wouldn’t change anything.


But if you could ensure that the energy going in during the blank was
legit, that would mean the energy measurement of the fraudulent source
would be more meaningful, and so the comparison to chemical energy density
would be more useful.

But a better control would be to have several ecats, and let a skeptic
choose which ones to charge, and which ones not to. Then compare the
outputs. And in particular, increase the electric input of a blank to match
the claimed lenr output of a real device, and see if the output is the same.


 But all sorts of improvements could of course have been made in the
 measurements. Lots of them. They have been pointed out several times. Just
 to have the thermocouples in contact with the water flow, have them well
 calibrated before the test, and have data logged on an sd-card in the
 display unit would have been a fundamental improvement.


Agreed.



 Possible explanations as to why Rossi didn’t do this have all been
 presented – either he’s sloppy, either he wants to hide a fraud, or he’s
 basically not interesting in doing a proper test in order not to reveal too
 much. We cannot prove neither of them at this point.


I don't think sloppy fits. It's too easy to improve the demo. So it's
almost certain that he deliberately makes things uncertain. The simplest
explanation is to hide fraud, but some sort of devious reverse-psychology,
fear of competition, secrecy motive could be contrived as well, I suppose.


 I suppose you have seen the analyses of October 6 by Heffner, Higgins and
 Roberson:


There is not really enough data (by design, presumably) to do a serious
analysis, and Roberson's is more like a fanboy's endorsement than an
analysis.

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-07 Thread Robert Leguillon


God, I hate to address this, but you either:
1) fundamentally misunderstand, 
2) are asking the wrong question
3) are willfully ignoring clarification
 
If you don not understand the arguments, you need to look back to the early 
E-Cats, where the question first arose.
 
The steam experts were right in the INITIAL steam discussions.  I agree with 
you. But they were being asked about steam quality, not water overflow.
Krivit raised his questions on steam quality which were, more than likely, 
bullshit.  Steam quality and entrained droplets were totally unnecessary and 
confused a valid issue.
It is true that the steam was measured with the wrong probe plugged into the 
meter, using it for measurements it was never intended. It couldn't have 
measured pressure or steam quality; but that's irrelevant.  People continued 
arguing the point because they were right, and needed to be recongnized for it 
- Ignore it.
Even though the method used to determine the steam quality was useless, 
steam quality was a red herring - a misnormer, really.  The steam was 
measured out of the top port, and it may have been 100%. Water would have been 
pouring out of the hose. 
 
The reason that people say that the temperature contradicts 100% dry steam is 
that the temperature never indicated a phase change.  The temperature would 
have climbed to whatever the local boiling point was, remained there for quite 
some time, and then elevated. Attached is a graph showing temperature elevation 
with a fixed heat source. 

The fact that this didn't occur means that the slightly elevated boiling 
temperature represented either impurities, poor calorimetry (sinking heat from 
adjoining metal, for example), or elevated pressure.  The closest example to 
ANYTHING like this graph occurring was in the 1MW demo, from which only the 
graph itself was supplied.
Look at the EK graph, which is the most convincing of all that I'd seen:

Rossi claims full vaporization, because the temperature is 100.2C! If you don't 
understand how the evidence directly contradicts complete vaporization, there 
is nothing that will open your eyes.  The temperature indicates only that 
boiling is occurring. 
You could open the steam port, and have dry steam coming out, but the evidence 
shows that water is flowing out the hose and down the drain. Period.

 
This is the same thing that may be happening in the Ottoman E-Cat: water 
gurgling out, and some steam. The assumption of complete vaporization cannot be 
relied upon, and is actually contradicted by the measurements. This is why your 
Method 2 for the October 6th test was unuseable.
 
Now, I need to go do something productive.
 
 
 
 

 




Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:43:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com




Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:

 


You cite the temperature as evidence, but the temperature actually contradicts 
full vaporization.
All of this has been explained succinctly ad nauseum, so please do not ask for 
any details on it



I do not need any details. As I mentioned, every expert in steam I have 
consulted with says this is bullshit.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Robert Leguillon 
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:


 The steam experts were right in the INITIAL steam discussions.  I agree
 with you. But they were being asked about steam quality, not water
 overflow.
 Krivit raised his questions on steam quality which were, more than likely,
 bullshit.  Steam quality and entrained droplets were totally unnecessary
 and confused a valid issue.


While I agree with your fundamental point, that the data do not show that
more than a small fraction of the water was vaporized, I think the picture
you show cannot represent reality, and that the idea of steam quality and
mist and entrained drops is relevant to what was observed at the end of the
hose, and in particular, why Lewan only collected about half the liquid
that went in.

The reason that picture is wrong is because the steam is formed in the
ecat, not at the water surface. Then it has to bubble through the water. It
takes only 1% vaporization (by mass) to produce 94% gas by volume. So, you
would not see the chimney full of quiet water like that. The chimney would
be mostly gas, and the turbulence would produce a lot of droplets that
would be carried into the hose by the fast moving steam.

Depending on the actual geometry of the chimney, the water might be forced
up the walls into the hose (a kind of annular flow). Or Rossi might use a
nozzle to promote the formation of mist. That way, much of the water could
disappear into the air as a mist at the end of the hose. And that could
easily explain why Lewan collected only half the liquid, even if only a few
per cent was actually vaporized.

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-07 Thread Robert Leguillon


Agreed. The picture is an over-simplification; it is dumbed-down to illustrate 
the very basic tenet of the argument.  I think that it is an exceptional 
illustration to get the basic points across (think Neils Bohr).  
You're right that it's more than likely gurgling and sputtering, as opposed to 
gently overflowing.  Still the diagram demonstrates that 100% dry steam being 
measured would still not preclude 99.9% of the water from pouring down the 
hose. 
 



Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:00:32 -0600
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
From: joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com




On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com 
wrote:





The steam experts were right in the INITIAL steam discussions.  I agree with 
you. But they were being asked about steam quality, not water overflow.
Krivit raised his questions on steam quality which were, more than likely, 
bullshit.  Steam quality and entrained droplets were totally unnecessary and 
confused a valid issue.


While I agree with your fundamental point, that the data do not show that more 
than a small fraction of the water was vaporized, I think the picture you show 
cannot represent reality, and that the idea of steam quality and mist and 
entrained drops is relevant to what was observed at the end of the hose, and in 
particular, why Lewan only collected about half the liquid that went in.


The reason that picture is wrong is because the steam is formed in the ecat, 
not at the water surface. Then it has to bubble through the water. It takes 
only 1% vaporization (by mass) to produce 94% gas by volume. So, you would not 
see the chimney full of quiet water like that. The chimney would be mostly gas, 
and the turbulence would produce a lot of droplets that would be carried into 
the hose by the fast moving steam. 


Depending on the actual geometry of the chimney, the water might be forced up 
the walls into the hose (a kind of annular flow). Or Rossi might use a nozzle 
to promote the formation of mist. That way, much of the water could disappear 
into the air as a mist at the end of the hose. And that could easily explain 
why Lewan collected only half the liquid, even if only a few per cent was 
actually vaporized.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat



I feel that the description of my analysis of the October 6, 2011 test as the 
work of a Rossi fan boy requires that I respond.  Mr. Cude, you should read my 
analysis before coming to such a conclusion since you seem to think of yourself 
as open minded and honest in your assessment of the Rossi devices.  We would be 
far better served if you were to devote some of your energy to seeking the 
truth instead of hiding facts and evidence.  I am convinced that you have 
talent, but that it is being misdirected at the moment and hopefully will begin 
to make a positive contribution to the discussion one day.
It was interesting to follow your disagreement with another of the more 
skeptical members of the group earlier today.  He was cowered by you for some 
reason and decided to abandon his position.  He was correct but his analysis 
was in direct opposition to your only island to stand upon in trying to prove 
Rossi is a scammer.  Of course you howled until he realized his mistake and 
dropped out of the argument.  You skeptics must stay together at all costs of 
course.
I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been faithful 
to that end.  My fan boy analysis as you say feeds fresh meat to both sides of 
the argument.  My conclusions have slowly been sharpened up with time and new 
ways of reviewing the data.  Rossi’s tests have been more like a CSI job 
instead of a simple physics experiment and I am sure you understand that.  The 
latest document that Mats Lewan refers to has a third and final section where I 
made my best effort to make sense of the space data.  Please read the total 
document before you trash it.  My conclusions are somewhat speculative because 
of the situation, but seem to fit the data fairly well.
Your ridiculous warping of the facts regarding the 1 MW test are just 
laughable.  We both agree that if the output of the ECATs is just water, then 
the power would be far less than certified by the engineer conducting the test. 
 On the other hand, the maximum power delivered could be in excess of 500 kW if 
we are to assume that everyone is honest and reporting facts.  Why should we 
assume that a well trained engineer would be so stupid as to be incapable of 
catching water?  Your explanation does not hold water any better than his 
method.
Please read the Wikipedia article on steam locomotives to put things in some 
perspective.  I would estimate that the total area of Rossi’s 107 ECATs is 
comparable to that of boiler within one of these devices.  How do you think 
that they can function at all if most of the steam leaving has a quality of 5% 
or so as you keep repeating?  This is what you peg your argument upon and it 
does not hold water.
You have demonstrated that you are not looking at the facts, but make up 
whatever you like to argue your case.  My model of the 1 MW systems does not 
require me to do any of this maneuvering.  If a straight forward model fits all 
of the facts, why should we go out of the way to insist upon one that requires 
dishonest behavior, ignorance or just plain deception as you suggest?  Come on.
Are you convinced that the only way for the system to release 470 kW would be 
for LENR action to be taking place?  Is that your hang-up?  Where are the 
skeptics that claim that energy is stored for long enough and intense enough to 
continue to heat the output for the full 5.5 hours?  Have they all given up on 
this possibility and now leave it up to people like yourself to throw 
uncertainty at the entire test system?  Please examine your motives here and if 
your conscience is clear, keep supporting your side of the argument.  I just 
hope that you are not making your statements to be argumentative as that is a 
waste of all of our time.
Dave

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat


Robert Leguillon wrote:

This is the same thing that may be happening in the Ottoman E-Cat: 
water gurgling out, and some steam. The assumption of complete 
vaporization cannot be relied upon, and is actually contradicted by 
the measurements. This is why your Method 2 for the October 6th test 
was unuseable.


I agree there may have been some liquid flowing through at times, but 
Lewan performed Method 2 after a very large burst of heat, and he found 
the flow rate was much lower than the flow rate going into the reactor. 
Therefore the reactor water level was low and the vessel was filling up. 
All of the water coming out of the heat exchanger hose at that time was 
condensed from steam.


I think you are right that at other times there may have been a mixture. 
If they had measured the flow rate constantly with two precision flow 
meters (for the inlet and outlet) they might have found something like 
that, where the overall flow coming out was higher than the flow coming in.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

*This also will be posted to Vortex
-

Hi Mats,

*In theory I suppose he could have removed the flanges and the shielding to
show the reactors, but that would probably have taken some time.

*Rossi's demos have always emphasized saving time over being accurate and
complete.  Of course, that makes no sense when introducing the greatest
invention of the century.  Rossi should have taken the time even if it
meant running into the night or in shifts.  He should have run for days or
even weeks under continuous observation.  I often read the excuse that
Rossi doesn't want to be convincing.  In that case, why show anything at
all to reporters and scientists?  Why not have only private demos?*

As for energy storing I believe that has been clearly shown not to be a
possible explanation in itself. You simply would need an additional heat
source inside to have water boiling after 4 hours with cold water added
continuously (I heard and felt the water boiling), hot water leaking and an
external surface still at 60-85 degrees centigrade (I measured that with my
own thermometer).

*I understand.  But a famous con man once said, if there is any the part of
the con that you don't get, it's the part that will get you.   I don't
pretend to know how Rossi may be faking if he is.  One needs to consider it
could be that he's audacious and resourceful enough to rely on combinations
of illusions.  He could rely on storage of the warmup heat *and* a source
of chemical, change of state, or other extraneous source.  And if it's an
illusion, it could also depend on deliberately inaccurate measurement of
enthalpy at the output end.  Different methods of cheating could be used in
different demonstrations.  And Rossi could have been lucky although I admit
most con men don't rely on luck.

Rossi has resisted many suggestions from many sources.  He won't use
foolproof methods of enthalpy measurement such as direct liquid cooling or
sparging the steam into an insulated contained.  He refuses to make long
runs.  He uses tangential excuses that he's more interested in customer
satisfaction than in proving the principle to the world -- yet he won't
name a single customer.  Even more telling, after all the time that went
by, he won't name a single credible person or organization who has
independently tested the device and has come up with a positive result.  He
has not given an E-cat to any university despite his claims to a plentiful
supply.   And he won't let anyone repeat Levi's excellent and fairly long
February run which was said to have gone 18 hours and used only liquid
coolant.*

A blank calibration poses some problems as once you have run the reactor
with hydrogen, and that had certainly been made previously, you always have
hydrogen loaded in the nickel even without pressure (if that is what’s
inside) and because of that you cannot exclude that the reaction starts (if
there’s a reaction). In any case a blank test wouldn’t exclude a fraud as
you in theory could choose not to start the magic heat producing fraud
technology in the blank test and then start it in the ‘real’ test. In that
sense a blank test wouldn’t change anything.*

The blank could have been done with new E-cats, innocent of hydrogen.  That
might be a bit hard on Rossi but he claims to have made and tested hundreds
or even thousands.

Of course Rossi could control an extraneous heat source, even in a blank
test.  However, the purpose of the blank/control/calibration run isn't so
much to rule out extraneous heat sources.   It's to verify the proper
functioning and approximate calibration of the heat exchanger and of the
output temperature and flow sensors -- the whole enthalpy measurement
chain.  That includes such things as thermocouple placement.Why go at
that with a complex simulation when you can simply make a measurement to
rule it in or out as a factor?

To further rule out an extraneous heat source would require a long
experiment  -- much longer than any Rossi has done to date and in keeping
with NASA's suggestions published by Krivit.I suppose that a
fraudulent, extraneous heat input could possibly be continuous but that can
be ruled out pretty well by the sort of inspection you did before the run.
And there is absolutely no valid reason to shut down a purported nuclear
fusion reactor after a four hour run when the reactor is claimed to go for
six or more months without refueling or any other attention.

I understand that only completely independent experiments (not involving
Rossi's lab, his power source, his pump and coolant and especially his
enthalpy measurement methods) are necessary to absolutely rule out fraud.
However, simply by insisting on a control/blank/calibration run and a long
enough run, and the pre-run inspections, one could make it vastly more
difficult and impractical for Rossi to cheat.  To date, I have not seen
that done.

I am also struck by the absence of such questions from

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:38 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Are you convinced that the only way for the system to release 470 kW would
 be for LENR action to be taking place?  Is that your hang-up?  Where are
 the skeptics that claim that energy is stored for long enough and intense
 enough to continue to heat the output for the full 5.5 hours?
 Dave


There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant
demonstration.  It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be
fictitious and that the engineer may work for Rossi, perhaps for quite a
very large fee or share.  It is also useful to remember that the device was
hooked to a running diesel generator capable of 400+ kW of output, and that
the experiment was derated to half the original estimated power output.
The generator could have supplied all the thermal energy produced in the
experiment via the heaters conveniently built in to every E-cat.  Because
the invited scientists and reporters were not allowed to see any data
collection, it would not even have been needed to fake the enthalpy
measurement -- it all had to be taken on faith anyway.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant
 demonstration.  It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be
 fictitious and that the engineer may work for Rossi, perhaps for quite a
 very large fee or share.


In other words, you have to believe in conspiracy theories. Which I do not.

Unless you have some evidence for these wild notions, I cannot take them
seriously.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant
 demonstration.  It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be
 fictitious and that the engineer may work for Rossi, perhaps for quite a
 very large fee or share.


 In other words, you have to believe in conspiracy theories. Which I do not.

 Unless you have some evidence for these wild notions, I cannot take them
 seriously.


Of course, you don't have to take them seriously.  A lot of Irish farmers
did not seriously consider fraud with the Steorn situation and so far, in
something like four years, they have lost 20 million Euros with nothing
whatever to show for it.   Steorn's CEO and a few upper echelon employees
have, I am sure, enjoyed spending their money.   Rossi for the most part,
talks and walks like Steorn did early on.  Earlier in this discussion, I
have named other scams that operated similarly including such notables as
convicted felons Dennis Lee and Carl Tilley (multiple convictions).

I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much more
time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's
veracity.

Of course, Rossi could dispel the wild notions in a comparatively short
time and at low cost and low risk to his intellectual property.  He could
also dispel them instantly -- simply by giving an E-cat for testing to any
university and allowing them to make a quick test of whether or not it
works as advertised and to report the results.   That he doesn't do that is
very suspicious and excuses about his not wanting to get more attention or
to reveal secrets are not persuasive for a whole bunch of reasons we have
discussed before.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat


Mary, you are clearly suggesting that this is a scam.  Are you that convinced?  
Where is the possibility that it might be honest?

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat





On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:38 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


Are you convinced that the only way for the system to release 470 kW would be 
for LENR action to be taking place?  Is that your hang-up?  Where are the 
skeptics that claim that energy is stored for long enough and intense enough to 
continue to heat the output for the full 5.5 hours?  
Dave


There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant 
demonstration.  It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be 
fictitious and that the engineer may work for Rossi, perhaps for quite a very 
large fee or share.  It is also useful to remember that the device was hooked 
to a running diesel generator capable of 400+ kW of output, and that the 
experiment was derated to half the original estimated power output.  The 
generator could have supplied all the thermal energy produced in the experiment 
via the heaters conveniently built in to every E-cat.  Because the invited 
scientists and reporters were not allowed to see any data collection, it would 
not even have been needed to fake the enthalpy measurement -- it all had to be 
taken on faith anyway.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much more
 time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's
 veracity.


I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. The chance of fraud is so low I do
not take that seriously. It is no more likely than a supernatural
event. Neither you nor any other skeptic has suggested any viable reason
why this demonstration was not definitive. You have never come up with a
method of committing fraud. If you could suggest a method, you would have
done so by now.

You are asking us to believe in fraud with a trace of evidence for it. Not
a trace! You are a true believer clinging to an absurd hypothesis that is
contrary to the laws of physics.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much
 more time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's
 veracity.


 I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive. The chance of fraud is so low I do
 not take that seriously. It is no more likely than a supernatural
 event. Neither you nor any other skeptic has suggested any viable reason
 why this demonstration was not definitive. You have never come up with a
 method of committing fraud. If you could suggest a method, you would have
 done so by now.

 You are asking us to believe in fraud with a trace of evidence for it. Not
 a trace! You are a true believer clinging to an absurd hypothesis that is
 contrary to the laws of physics.



Foot stomping. Nothing more.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Mary, you are clearly suggesting that this is a scam.


Let me correct the wording -- I am suggesting strongly that it *may be* a
scam.  I am cautious to allow for the small probability that it is not one
and simply looks and feels like one due to Rossi's acting mostly like I'd
expect a scammer to talk and behave.



   Are you that convinced?


I am convinced that a scam is the most likely explanation.  If by convinced
you mean certain, I am NOT certain.  I have no evidence to make it
certain.  I never said I did.



   Where is the possibility that it might be honest?


I have no idea of the probability that Rossi is honest.  I hope he is.
However his honesty has been questioned many times before and in many
settings unrelated to his current activity.  I urge everyone to be cautious
in accepting his claims and to hold his feet to the fire, as I said before,
to prove his truthfulness.   And that is as simple and quick and cheap as
giving a single E-cat to a university with permission to do quick tests of
its reality and reveal the conclusion.  And of course Rossi has not done
that yet and seems to be increasingly making absurd excuses for not doing
it.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much
 more time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's
 veracity.


 I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive.


Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree.  The measurement method
was questionable and unverified and the run was way too short.  We've gone
over this before and I guess we have to agree to disagree.


 The chance of fraud is so low I do not take that seriously. It is no more
 likely than a supernatural event. Neither you nor any other skeptic has
 suggested any viable reason why this demonstration was not definitive. You
 have never come up with a method of committing fraud. If you could suggest
 a method, you would have done so by now.


Well, we did suggest several methods but you don't agree.  That's OK too.
And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential
methods to cheat we may not have thought of.



 You are asking us to believe in fraud with a trace of evidence for it. Not
 a trace!


Behaving like a scammer and resisting all reasonable and safe suggestions
to prove that the device is real is definitely evidence suggesting a scam.
I agree it isn't proof.


 You are a true believer clinging to an absurd hypothesis that is contrary
 to the laws of physics.


Perhaps in your view but I find myself in good company.  Your company
includes George Hants, Sterling Allan, Hank Mills and Craig Brown.  Not so
great.  And yes, that's not conclusive evidence for a scam either but
everything they have supported thus far has, for the most part, been
delusions and scams.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 I have no idea of the probability that Rossi is honest.  I hope he is.


He is not, I assure you. He often dissembles about personal matters. If the
truth or falsity of this claim is predicated on his personal honesty, we
must dismiss it.

Fortunately, it is predicated on immutable laws of physics and first
principle observations made by dozens of people who I know to be honest. It
is predicated on the work of Piantelli and others, and on experimental
results obtained with instruments supplied by other people such as
Ampenergo and whoever bought the 1 MW reactor.

You need to forget about Rossi's behavior and his personality. They have
nothing to do with this issue. He could be the most dishonest person in the
world but he cannot change the laws of nature.

I do not understand why you are so obsessed with Rossi's personality to the
point that you ignore physics.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive.


 Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree.


I have not heard from any yet. There has to be a time limit for these
things. As Melich and I wrote regarding cold fusion in general:

. . . [S]keptics have had 20 years to expose an experimental artifact, but
they have failed to do so. A reasonable time limit to find errors must be
set, or results from decades or centuries ago will remain in limbo, forever
disputed, and progress will ground to a halt. The calorimeters used by cold
fusion researchers were developed in the late 18th and early 19th century.
A skeptic who asserts that scientists cannot measure multiple watts of heat
with confidence is, in effect, rejecting most textbook chemistry and
physics from the last 130 years.



 The measurement method was questionable and unverified and the run was way
 too short.


Nonsense. It was 4 hours long. You can tell at a glance that the reactor
would have reached room temperature after 40 min. You can repeat this
nonsense as many times as you like but the graphs show you are wrong.
Everyday experience with boiling water in poorly insulated pots proves you
are wrong. You should think about the evidence and basic physics and stop
repeating absurdities. And stop obsessing with Rossi personality.

Enough already.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential
 methods to cheat we may not have thought of.


You do not have to remind me of that. I have to remind *you* that is a
violation of the scientific method. It is proposition that cannot be tested
or falsified. It is like saying there is probably an invisible undetectable
fairy godmother hovering in the air causing these effects. I find it
incredible that you still do not understand this.

An argument is not valid or meaningful *at all* unless you can describe
some specific means of testing it and proving it is true -- or false. No
one can prove that there are probably potential methods. You have to list
actual methods. You might as well claim there are probably potential
methods of proving that the world is flat. Okay, show us the methods!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:



 I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been
 faithful to that end.

That is not consistent with your frequently expressed absolute certainty
that LENR is occurring.



Why should we assume that a well trained engineer would be so stupid as to
 be incapable of catching water?


Because of the geometry of the trap. It would not capture entrained mist.

Why should we assume that a well-trained engineer would be so stupid as to
be incapable of knowing the output flow rate?


 Please read the Wikipedia article on steam locomotives to put things in
 some perspective.  I would estimate that the total area of Rossi’s 107
 ECATs is comparable to that of boiler within one of these devices.  How
 do you think that they can function at all if most of the steam leaving has
 a quality of 5% or so as you keep repeating?

How does steam engines producing dry steam mean that the ecats are? You
need more than the same area. You also need the power. The water level in
steam engine boilers is regulated to ensure dry steam. In the ecat it's
not. So if the power is too low, liquid water is forced through. It has no
choice.

  If a straight forward model fits all of the facts, why should we go out
 of the way to insist upon one that requires dishonest behavior, ignorance
 or just plain deception as you suggest?

Low vaporization is the most straightforward model that fits all the facts.
It requires only the assumption that the trap is not effective for an
entrained mist, and the closed valve kind of suggests it was not effective
at all. 470 kW out requires unrealistic power regulation and stability
and/or ignorance of the output flow rate.


 Are you convinced that the only way for the system to release 470 kW would
 be for LENR action to be taking place?

No. I've answered this already. Playing with the report numbers is nothing
more than academic, since we have no way to verify any of the results of
that test. Even Rothwell agrees with that. To be convinced that heat was
being produced by nuclear reactions would require disconnecting the 450 kW
generator, verifying the energy out with a properly used heat exchanger,
and demonstrably independent observation, and running it much much longer.



   Where are the skeptics that claim that energy is stored for long enough
 and intense enough to continue to heat the output for the full 5.5 hours?


First, it didn't. The output temperature bounced around, and for the last
half, mostly decreased, in spite of the fact that the input crept up a
little because of recycling the output. But all you need is a slight
increase in pressure to increase the temperature, as long as you've got
liquid vapor equilibrium.

Second, there is little point for any skeptics to waste their time trying
to analyze the Oct 28 test, because there was no independent
verification. Without trust in Rossi and his engineer of unknown
connection, we have absolutely nothing. And from what we do have, there was
a 450 kW generator connected, no evidence of dry steam, and unknown
pre-heating conditions, and 107 completely uninspected ecats, which could
easily contain more than just thermal mass for energy storage.

Just look at the 450 kW generator beside it. It's a fraction of the size,
and is capable of producing 3 times the thermal energy, at a temperature
high enough to convert it to electricity. And it doesn't need to be plugged
in to anything. It makes the giant ecat pretty feeble in comparison. The
only thing that the megacat might have going for it over the generator
would be run time, but, sadly, that was not demonstrated.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I agree there may have been some liquid flowing through at times, but
 Lewan performed Method 2 after a very large burst of heat, and he found the
 flow rate was much lower than the flow rate going into the reactor.
 Therefore the reactor water level was low and the vessel was filling up.
 All of the water coming out of the heat exchanger hose at that time was
 condensed from steam.


You don't know any of that. There was steam and mist coming out of the
hose, both at unknown flow rates. All Lewan measured was the collected
water over a period of time.




  If they had measured the flow rate constantly with two precision flow
 meters (for the inlet and outlet) they might have found something like
 that, where the overall flow coming out was higher than the flow coming in.


Yes. Wouldn't it be nice if things were actually measured. But Rossi
doesn't allow us near the tree of knowledge. That would not serve his
purpose.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant
 demonstration.  It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be
 fictitious and that the engineer may work for Rossi, perhaps for quite a
 very large fee or share.


 In other words, you have to believe in conspiracy theories. Which I do not.


Except for the one about suppressing cold fusion research.

A 2-person con does not a conspiracy theory make. Sorry.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive.


 Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree.


 I have not heard from any yet.


You've heard here and elsewhere on the internet.  Perhaps you are not
listening.




 The measurement method was questionable and unverified and the run was
 way too short.


 Nonsense. It was 4 hours long. You can tell at a glance that the reactor
 would have reached room temperature after 40 min. You can repeat this
 nonsense as many times as you like but the graphs show you are wrong.
 Everyday experience with boiling water in poorly insulated pots proves you
 are wrong. You should think about the evidence and basic physics and stop
 repeating absurdities.


What seems absurd to you is not to other capable people.



 And stop obsessing with Rossi personality.



You have that wrong.  I may be obsessive about Rossi's **actions** but I
don't care a bit about his ridiculous if funny personality.   Met any
snakes and clowns lately?  Think every critique comes from a competitor?
Rossi is hilarious.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential
 methods to cheat we may not have thought of.


 You do not have to remind me of that. I have to remind *you* that is a
 violation of the scientific method. It is proposition that cannot be tested
 or falsified. It is like saying there is probably an invisible undetectable
 fairy godmother hovering in the air causing these effects. I find it
 incredible that you still do not understand this.

 An argument is not valid or meaningful *at all* unless you can describe
 some specific means of testing it and proving it is true -- or false. No
 one can prove that there are probably potential methods. You have to list
 actual methods. You might as well claim there are probably potential
 methods of proving that the world is flat. Okay, show us the methods!


As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument.  Rossi can
invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a
university, allowing them to test it and report the results.  At this
point, it wouldn't need to cost anything, would be quick and would be
definitive and HE WON'T DO IT even though he started to promise he would as
early as last Spring!

If Rossi got a proper test, it would falsify the proposition that he is a
scammer.  It is exactly that simple.  Until he does it, you have no way of
knowing that he's not simply more clever at hiding bamboozling than you are
at suspecting or detecting it!

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 Everyday experience with boiling water in poorly insulated pots proves you
 are wrong. You should think about the evidence and basic physics and stop
 repeating absurdities.


 What seems absurd to you is not to other capable people.


A person who thinks it is possible to keep water at boiling temperatures
for four hours at a poorly insulated vessel is not capable, by definition.

Anyone who even imagines that is possible is a crackpot.

Anyone who thinks it is valid to propose there are probably potential
methods of proving a proposition, without specifics beyond that, is
ignorant of basic logic and the scientific method.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:



 Fortunately, it is predicated on immutable laws of physics and first
 principle observations made by dozens of people who I know to be honest.


No. The laws of physics and ordinary chemistry can explain all the
observations without invoking nuclear reactions.


It is predicated on the work of Piantelli and others,


Work about which *you* were skeptical before Rossi came along. Shall I dig
up the quotations again?

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument.  Rossi can
 invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a
 university,


Your statement applies to Rossi, not your own argument. *Your argument* has
to be falsifiable. It is not. You are the one invoking fairy godmothers
that no one can ever detect, even in principle.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive.


 Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree.


 I have not heard from any yet.


How to break this to you? They don't care about you. You'll have to go
looking for their judgements. Start with Krivit's 200 page report.



 There has to be a time limit for these things.


Yes, but on Rossi's side. Really, tell us, if there is no commercial ecat
available that you or I can buy in a year, will you be as certain as you
are now? What about 2 years? 5 years?

It's already 12 years after the time you predicted cold fusion cars would
be available.

As Melich and I wrote regarding cold fusion in general:

 . . . [S]keptics have had 20 years to expose an experimental artifact,
 but they have failed to do so.


Wrong onus. Advocates have had 22 years to demonstrate what should be dead
easy to demonstrate, and have failed to do so. That's why most people don't
pay attention anymore. When a really convincing demo comes along, like the
one you have described with an isolated device that stays palpably warmer
than its surroundings long enough to exclude chemical reactions. Nothing
close to that exists yet.

A reasonable time limit to find errors must be set, or results from decades
 or centuries ago will remain in limbo, forever disputed, and progress will
 ground to a halt.


Sorry, the only people in limbo are believers, and it's true, they will
spin their wheels into their graves. The skeptics just ignore the voodoo
and carry on making progress in their respective fields. It has always been
thus.




 The measurement method was questionable and unverified and the run was
 way too short.


 Nonsense. It was 4 hours long. You can tell at a glance that the reactor
 would have reached room temperature after 40 min.


You keep saying that, but it took 50 minutes to drop 10 degrees after it
was shut down. That means you're just plain wrong.

You can repeat this nonsense as many times as you like but the graphs show
 you are wrong. Everyday experience with boiling water in poorly insulated
 pots proves you are wrong.


Are your pots 100 kg in mass? Are they wrapped in insulation and foil? Is
that what counts as proof in the field of cold fusion? Sad!

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument.  Rossi can
 invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a
 university,


 Your statement applies to Rossi, not your own argument. *Your argument*has to 
 be falsifiable. It is not. You are the one invoking fairy godmothers
 that no one can ever detect, even in principle.


My statement has to be falsifiable and it is: simply by Rossi submitting
his device to proper independent verification.  I have no idea what you're
saying above.  Maybe someone can translate?  It makes no sense at all to
me.

I'm really trying to understand you but I don't.   Well... I
suppose if Rossi's device proved to be fake, it still wouldn't necessarily
reveal how he faked it.  Is that what you're saying?  If so, so what?  If
not, maybe say it some other way.

The point I made was simply that you (or anyone) are unable to anticipate
all the ways in which Rossi can fool you.  Do you have a problem with that
specific limited statement?

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential
 methods to cheat we may not have thought of.


 You do not have to remind me of that. I have to remind *you* that is a
 violation of the scientific method.


You don't know anything about the scientific method. Why is a non-scientist
telling scientists how to do their job. Do you also advise Tiger Woods on
his golf swing?


It is proposition that cannot be tested or falsified. It is like saying
 there is probably an invisible undetectable fairy godmother hovering in the
 air causing these effects.


It's nothing like that. In fact that's what advocates are doing. They are
saying nuclear but can't specify a reaction or a mechanism to thermalize.
That' s done by the fairy godmother.

Yet, when skeptics claim it is chemical because the energy density fits,
somehow *they* are required to specify the reaction and mechanism, or they
won't be believed.

It's a double standard. No, worse. Because surely the onus on proving the
mechanism falls to the claimant.



If the proof of a nuclear reaction relies on energy density, then it is
enough to show the energy density is far below that of chemical fuel, to
reject the evidence.

An argument is not valid or meaningful *at all* unless you can describe
 some specific means of testing it and proving it is true -- or false. No
 one can prove that there are probably potential methods. You have to list
 actual methods. You might as well claim there are probably potential
 methods of proving that the world is flat. Okay, show us the methods!


Again. This is what advocates are doing. They say there are probably
nuclear methods to provide the observed heat, but don't show us how.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat


Mary Yugo wrote:

My statement has to be falsifiable and it is: simply by Rossi 
submitting his device to proper independent verification.


I meant your first statement, which is that there are probably 
potential methods of stage magic or faking kilowatt levels of heat.


Probably potential phenomena not otherwise named or specified are not 
admissible evidence in a science-based discussion. Only in theology, as 
far as I know.


Your second statement about Rossi is correct. No one disputes it.

Let's agree to disagree, and drop the subject. You are welcome to have 
the last word if you please.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:



 A person who thinks it is possible to keep water at boiling temperatures
 for four hours at a poorly insulated vessel is not capable, by definition.



By any method? In a 100 kg device that holds 30 L of water. Come on. You're
not serious. 20 kg of fire brick at 1000C, no problem. Molten lead? Easy
peasy. A few liters of alcohol? Simple. etc.




 Anyone who even imagines that is possible is a crackpot.


Anyone who thinks it's not is ignorant.



 Anyone who thinks it is valid to propose there are probably potential
 methods of proving a proposition, without specifics beyond that, is
 ignorant of basic logic and the scientific method.


The demonstrated energy density is a tiny fraction of chemical energy
density. That is no evidence of nuclear reactions, no matter how you slice
it, or how many times you stomp your feet.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument.  Rossi can
 invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a
 university,


 Your statement applies to Rossi, not your own argument. *Your argument*has to 
 be falsifiable. It is not. You are the one invoking fairy godmothers
 that no one can ever detect, even in principle.


Again. That's you. No one can explain the nuclear reaction. You're invoking
fairies.

The claimed evidence for a nuclear effect is energy density. Rejection of
that evidence because the energy density is lower than chemical energy
density only requires evidence that chemical energy density is higher (much
higher). You don't have a clue what role falsifiability plays in science.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat


Dear Josh, at least you are consistent.  Always claiming that someone or 
something is not as it appears.  MY realizes she might be in error and I 
respect her for some honesty.  Now, do you sincerely think that the large 
generator was supplying the heat energy to vaporize the water?  If all of us on 
the vortex tried to find ways to scam the public as you seem to enjoy, do you 
not think we could be successful like you?  Sometimes realism needs to float to 
the top.

All you ever seem to do is to tear down things and people.  Why not use your 
talents for the good instead?  What would it take for you to be finally 
convinced that the 1 MW system is real?  I would honestly like to know the 
answer to that question.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 3:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat





On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:





I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been faithful 
to that end. 

That is not consistent with your frequently expressed absolute certainty that 
LENR is occurring. 

 

Why should we assume that a well trained engineer would be so stupid as to be 
incapable of catching water?  



Because of the geometry of the trap. It would not capture entrained mist. 


Why should we assume that a well-trained engineer would be so stupid as to be 
incapable of knowing the output flow rate? 
 

Please read the Wikipedia article on steam locomotives to put things in some 
perspective.  I would estimate that the total area of Rossi’s 107 ECATs is 
comparable to that of boiler within one of these devices.  How do you think 
that they can function at all if most of the steam leaving has a quality of 5% 
or so as you keep repeating? 

How does steam engines producing dry steam mean that the ecats are? You need 
more than the same area. You also need the power. The water level in steam 
engine boilers is regulated to ensure dry steam. In the ecat it's not. So if 
the power is too low, liquid water is forced through. It has no choice.



  If a straight forward model fits all of the facts, why should we go out of 
the way to insist upon one that requires dishonest behavior, ignorance or just 
plain deception as you suggest? 

Low vaporization is the most straightforward model that fits all the facts. It 
requires only the assumption that the trap is not effective for an entrained 
mist, and the closed valve kind of suggests it was not effective at all. 470 kW 
out requires unrealistic power regulation and stability and/or ignorance of the 
output flow rate.
 

Are you convinced that the only way for the system to release 470 kW would be 
for LENR action to be taking place? 

No. I've answered this already. Playing with the report numbers is nothing more 
than academic, since we have no way to verify any of the results of that test. 
Even Rothwell agrees with that. To be convinced that heat was being produced by 
nuclear reactions would require disconnecting the 450 kW generator, verifying 
the energy out with a properly used heat exchanger, and demonstrably 
independent observation, and running it much much longer. 


 

  Where are the skeptics that claim that energy is stored for long enough and 
intense enough to continue to heat the output for the full 5.5 hours?  

First, it didn't. The output temperature bounced around, and for the last half, 
mostly decreased, in spite of the fact that the input crept up a little because 
of recycling the output. But all you need is a slight increase in pressure to 
increase the temperature, as long as you've got liquid vapor equilibrium.


Second, there is little point for any skeptics to waste their time trying to 
analyze the Oct 28 test, because there was no independent verification. 
Without trust in Rossi and his engineer of unknown connection, we have 
absolutely nothing. And from what we do have, there was a 450 kW generator 
connected, no evidence of dry steam, and unknown pre-heating conditions, and 
107 completely uninspected ecats, which could easily contain more than just 
thermal mass for energy storage. 


Just look at the 450 kW generator beside it. It's a fraction of the size, and 
is capable of producing 3 times the thermal energy, at a temperature high 
enough to convert it to electricity. And it doesn't need to be plugged in to 
anything. It makes the giant ecat pretty feeble in comparison. The only thing 
that the megacat might have going for it over the generator would be run time, 
but, sadly, that was not demonstrated.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-07 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 11-12-07 04:01 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Dear Josh, at least you are consistent.  Always claiming that someone 
or something is not as it appears.  MY realizes she might be in error 
and I respect her for some honesty.  Now, do you sincerely think that 
the large generator was supplying the heat energy to vaporize the 
water?  If all of us on the vortex tried to find ways to scam the 
public as you seem to enjoy, do you not think we could be successful 
like you?  Sometimes realism needs to float to the top.
All you ever seem to do is to tear down things and people.  Why not 
use your talents for the good instead?  What would it take for you to 
be finally convinced that the 1 MW system is real?  I would honestly 
like to know the answer to that question.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 3:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat



On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com 
mailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote:




I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have
been faithful to that end.

That is not consistent with your frequently expressed absolute 
certainty that LENR is occurring.


Why should we assume that a well trained engineer would be so
stupid as to be incapable of catching water?


Because of the geometry of the trap. It would not capture entrained mist.

Why should we assume that a well-trained engineer would be so stupid 
as to be incapable of knowing the output flow rate?


Please read the Wikipedia article on steam locomotives to put
things in some perspective.I would estimate that the total area of
Rossi's 107 ECATs is comparable to that of boiler within one of
these devices.How do you think that they can function at all if
most of the steam leaving has a quality of 5% or so as you keep
repeating?

How does steam engines producing dry steam mean that the ecats are? 
You need more than the same area. You also need the power. The water 
level in steam engine boilers is regulated to ensure dry steam.


If by steam engine you mean steam locomotive engine, then they 
actually incorporated steam driers specifically to dry the steam after 
it left the boiler and, IIRC, before it entered the superheater.  That's 
what at least some of those funny domes on the tops of the old 
locomotives had inside them.


The designers did not simply assume the steam came straight out of the 
boiler already dry.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

  Now, do you sincerely think that the large generator was supplying the
 heat energy to vaporize the water?


I don't have sincere thoughts about anything on this subject. It could be,
and that weakens Rossi's case. Those ecats could all have little burners in
them too. Or thermite. There are too many possibilities to accept the
highly unlikely claim of radiation less nuclear reactions producing heat.

  What would it take for you to be finally convinced that the 1 MW system
 is real?


This has been covered.

First, I would prefer a single ecat to simplify the scale. 100 ecats making
100 times the power is pointless, and I think a deliberate distraction.

Either way, it should be completely and obviously isolated, with
verification from skeptical observers.

It should produce heat in an obvious and verifiable way, by heating up
large bodies of water, or doing mechanical work, or at least using a
properly calibrated heat exchanger, and verified by skeptical observers.
The more obvious, the less verification needed. For example. heating a few
thousand liters of water to boiling with a single ecat would be visible.
Boiling it to half the volume, even better.

It should keep going long enough to really exclude chemical fuels. In other
words, produce more heat than the entire weight of the thing in the best
chemical fuel. There's a factor of a million to work with. Why not at least
demonstrate a factor of 10 or 100?

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

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

If by steam engine you mean steam locomotive engine, then they actually
 incorporated steam driers specifically to dry the steam after it left the
 boiler and, IIRC, before it entered the superheater.  That's what at least
 some of those funny domes on the tops of the old locomotives had inside
 them.


They did indeed! But the steam was reasonably dry without them.
Steam locomotives worked without those superheaters. In some applications,
especially slow-moving yard engines that stopped and started often, the
super heaters would malfunction and explode. So they did not use them
with small switching engines or mining engines. Those engines were less
efficient because of this.

On mainline engines there were two domes, by the way. The larger one was
filled with sand, which they sometimes had to drop on wet or icy tracks to
improve traction. Locomotives still use sand.

The point of the discussion is that engineers (railroad and HVAC) know from
steam -- to put it in Yiddish syntax.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat


Of course you are making a good point that they did use extra equipment to 
ensure that the steam was very dry.  The question is what is the dryness of the 
steam before it entered those devices?  Do you have any reference to this 
information?  Are we talking about only 5% at this point?

Thanks,

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 4:10 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat




On 11-12-07 04:01 PM, David Roberson wrote: 
Dear Josh, at least you are consistent.  Always claiming that someone or 
something is not as it appears.  MY realizes she might be in error and I 
respect her for some honesty.  Now, do you sincerely think that the large 
generator was supplying the heat energy to vaporize the water?  If all of us on 
the vortex tried to find ways to scam the public as you seem to enjoy, do you 
not think we could be successful like you?  Sometimes realism needs to float to 
the top.
 
All you ever seem to do is to tear down things and people.  Why not use your 
talents for the good instead?  What would it take for you to be finally 
convinced that the 1 MW system is real?  I would honestly like to know the 
answer to that question.
 
Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 3:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat





On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:





I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been faithful 
to that end. 

That is not consistent with your frequently expressed absolute certainty that 
LENR is occurring. 

 

Why should we assume that a well trained engineer would be so stupid as to be 
incapable of catching water?  



Because of the geometry of the trap. It would not capture entrained mist. 


Why should we assume that a well-trained engineer would be so stupid as to be 
incapable of knowing the output flow rate? 
 

Please read the Wikipedia article on steam locomotives to put things in some 
perspective.  I would estimate that the total area of Rossi’s 107 ECATs is 
comparable to that of boiler within one of these devices.  How do you think 
that they can function at all if most of the steam leaving has a quality of 5% 
or so as you keep repeating? 

How does steam engines producing dry steam mean that the ecats are? You need 
more than the same area. You also need the power. The water level in steam 
engine boilers is regulated to ensure dry steam.



If by steam engine you mean steam locomotive engine, then they actually 
incorporated steam driers specifically to dry the steam after it left the 
boiler and, IIRC, before it entered the superheater.  That's what at least some 
of those funny domes on the tops of the old locomotives had inside them.

The designers did not simply assume the steam came straight out of the boiler 
already dry.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 You are welcome to have the last word if you please.


No, thank you.  LOL.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat


OK, I think I understand your position now.  You have a gut feeling that Rossi 
is attempting a scam, but you could actually be convinced it is a real system 
under the proper circumstances.  You will get no argument from me regarding 
your statements needed for proof as I am quite unhappy about the lack of good 
solid data that has been made available to us.  I have spent far too much 
effort plowing through the mess looking for solid leads that can not be 
refuted.  You must realize that your standards are probably not capable of 
being fulfilled without some doubt remaining.  One can always suggest that 
those making the claims are somehow in error or being paid by Rossi or ignorant 
like the customer engineer(not my opinion), etc.

Dave 

-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 4:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat





On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Now, do you sincerely think that the large generator was supplying the heat 
energy to vaporize the water? 



I don't have sincere thoughts about anything on this subject. It could be, and 
that weakens Rossi's case. Those ecats could all have little burners in them 
too. Or thermite. There are too many possibilities to accept the highly 
unlikely claim of radiation less nuclear reactions producing heat.



  What would it take for you to be finally convinced that the 1 MW system is 
real?  



This has been covered.


First, I would prefer a single ecat to simplify the scale. 100 ecats making 100 
times the power is pointless, and I think a deliberate distraction.


Either way, it should be completely and obviously isolated, with verification 
from skeptical observers. 


It should produce heat in an obvious and verifiable way, by heating up large 
bodies of water, or doing mechanical work, or at least using a properly 
calibrated heat exchanger, and verified by skeptical observers. The more 
obvious, the less verification needed. For example. heating a few thousand 
liters of water to boiling with a single ecat would be visible. Boiling it to 
half the volume, even better.


It should keep going long enough to really exclude chemical fuels. In other 
words, produce more heat than the entire weight of the thing in the best 
chemical fuel. There's a factor of a million to work with. Why not at least 
demonstrate a factor of 10 or 100?

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-07 Thread Robert Leguillon








A lot of responses have already been kicked up by JC and MY, but I'd like to 
continue, if I may, to Jed. 
This is a long reply, and was in discussion of using the primary of the October 
6th test in any considerations as to test validity.
 
I completely understand your argument of rising and falling E-Cat levels.  I 
know that its based on Roberson's water-level analysis, but you know the 
problem with it.
We do not have the incoming flow rate, and all we have for the outgoing rate 
are the two from Lewan (one while it was running, and one during purging).  His 
measurements could coincide with overflow just as easily as a decrease in 
output power.  Without knowing the input flow rate, this cannot be determined 
with any level of confidence.  And I really appreciated David's well-thought 
analysis on power/water levels.  I'm sure he had a great Aha! moment or two, 
where the scenario seemed to match up. Immediately after the test, I had begun 
my own analysis, building the same graphs and tables that everyone else was. 
The error margins due to unknown variables were so large as to make a null 
output just as possible as the claimed output.  It was aggravating, but it 
really makes one understand just how few data points are there when they are 
most critical.  
 
You can't see how tenuous the conclusion is until you try to reproduce it 
yourself. If the output thermocouples are jeopardized by their placement, the 
test is moot. 

You look at the September data, and find that: not only is the pump he's chosen 
variable frequency and variable stroke, but its output also varies 
substantially based on the amount of back pressure - If you measure the output 
into a reservoir, it will read higher than when it is actually being used for 
pumping water into the E-Cat.
You start to realize, for example, that Mats raising the end of the line, 
trying to get SOME idea of flow rate, is effecting the test.  While he's 
pooling up the condensate line for a careful measure, this length of water 
actually creates additional back pressure all of the way to the heat exchanger, 
and respectively, the E-Cat.  That back pressure results in a higher boiling 
point, raising the recorded temperature at the E-Cat probe with no power 
increase necessary.  
You realize that a large spike can be seen at the heat exchanger simply by 
water overflowing.  I've said this before, but imagine the E-Cat filling taking 
in water at a rate of 1 g/s, but only boiling off .1 g/s.   At the moment of 
overflow, the temperature at the thermocouple would actually increase with no 
change in core power.
Without knowing the input water flow and output water flow of the E-Cat, trying 
to derive any power data from its temperature is a fool's errand.
 
I will politely ask to agree to disagree on the October 6th data; the two 
methods of determining the power are, in my opinion, insufficient. 
In Method 1: the calorimetry in the secondary was, in my opinion, inconclusive. 
The thermal transfer between the brass and the water, the air surrounding the 
brass, the unknown conductivity between the braided wire and the nut, the 
environment under the insulation, all make the thermocouple placement suspect, 
and are not properly alotted in the Excel data that you graciously provided.  
Furthermore, it looked to be placed specifically to maximize heat contamination 
with the primary input.  
In Method 2: there is insufficient data on water flow to make any reasonable 
approximations on output power.
The most conclusive piece of the demonstration, as you often refer to as first 
principle, is that Mats said it was still boiling, and the surface was still 
hot.  I have avoided publicly addressing this, because I would have to address 
this as fraud, instead of bad calorimetry.  I have tried to avoid any such 
claims, but it's inescapable.  The earlier tests could have failed and been 
simply bad calorimetry.  If the October tests did not produce any excess heat, 
then I cannot think of any determination that doesn't involve intentional 
desception.
 
I will openly admit that a very large part of why I am so critical is my 
impression of Rossi.  But, due to a lack of independent testing, and variables 
whose origin is Rossi says... I have rely on the data that we have available. 
 If the data is not specifically meausured by an impartial instrument or 
observer, and Rossi supplies the evidence, then his credibility is added to the 
equation.  I do not think that Rossi has credibility.  I would be just as 
critical if he was claiming a lithium battery technology that gives an electric 
car 5,000 miles per charge.  I believe that the evidence of his past points 
towards exaggerated claims of performance based on real technology 
(http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg56290.html).  Claiming 
orders-of-magnitude performance better than everyone else on thermoelectric 
generators or biodeisel refinement is not that much different than claiming

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Of course you are making a good point that they did use extra equipment to
 ensure that the steam was very dry.  The question is what is the dryness of
 the steam before it entered those devices?  Do you have any reference to
 this information?  Are we talking about only 5% at this point?



Water is never forced through boilers by design, so the steam would be more
than 90% dry. In the ecat, the input water flow is constant. If the power
doesn't keep up, water is forced out with the steam. And then it can be
very wet indeed.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat


Of course you are correct if water is being forced out of the ECAT.  I see no 
reason to believe that that is the situation since an attempt was made to 
measure the water and some was captured.  It should also be noted that Rossi 
and company had the input power set to 180 kWatts during the initial portion of 
the self sustaining mode.  The ECATs should have been producing 1 MW under that 
condition before the power was shut down.  If that was the case, then twice as 
much water was being evaporated as inputted to the ECATs during that time.  
This is further evidence that they were not full of water and overflowing.  
Again, I do not need to apply the ignorant engineer card every time things do 
not add up.  The only way that anyone can suggest that the ECATs were full and 
overflowing is to assume bad test procedures.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 5:03 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat





On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Of course you are making a good point that they did use extra equipment to 
ensure that the steam was very dry.  The question is what is the dryness of the 
steam before it entered those devices?  Do you have any reference to this 
information?  Are we talking about only 5% at this point?
 





Water is never forced through boilers by design, so the steam would be more 
than 90% dry. In the ecat, the input water flow is constant. If the power 
doesn't keep up, water is forced out with the steam. And then it can be very 
wet indeed.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:

We do not have the incoming flow rate, and all we have for the outgoing
 rate are the two from Lewan (one while it was running, and one during
 purging).


Rossi stated the incoming flow rate was 15 L per hour. I think it was,
because it took two hours to fill the vessel. That is a constant
displacement pump, which is a highly reliable gadget. No one saw him change
the flow rate. The sound of the pump did not change in the video. So I am
pretty sure it was 15 L the whole time.

As I said, I have *never* seen Rossi lie about this kind of detail. Never.
Nor do I see any reason why he would.



 You can't see how tenuous the conclusion is until you try to reproduce it
 yourself.


Have done.



  If the output thermocouples are jeopardized by their placement, the test
 is moot.


Those things will pick up the pipe temperature reliably. I have used them
for that purpose. They do not pick up the temperature inches away, or the
air temp.



 You start to realize, for example, that Mats raising the end of the line,
 trying to get SOME idea of flow rate, is effecting the test.  While he's
 pooling up the condensate line for a careful measure, this length of water
 actually creates additional back pressure all of the way to the heat
 exchanger, and respectively, the E-Cat.  That back pressure results in a
 higher boiling point, raising the recorded temperature at the E-Cat probe
 with no power increase necessary.


No way Jose. There is no way the back pressure from this can measurably
affect kilowatt level steam production temperatures or behavior at the
other side of a heat exchanger!

Lewan's method was crude and I doubt he can measure the flow rate to within
20%. The difference between this result and Method 1 is probably explained
by Method 2 inaccuracy.



  You realize that a large spike can be seen at the heat exchanger simply
 by water overflowing.


I believe you have that backwards.



   I've said this before, but imagine the E-Cat filling taking in water at
 a rate of 1 g/s, but only boiling off .1 g/s.


That would lower to total enthalpy going to the heat exchanger. There would
be more enthalpy when it is boiling enough to prevent an overflow. The test
does not begin until the vessel is full, so it has to be either
overflowing, or boiling off, or a combination of the two the whole time.
You get the most heat when it is all steam; the least when it is all
overflowing water; and midway between them when it is mixed.



 Without knowing the input water flow and output water flow of the E-Cat,
 trying to derive any power data from its temperature is a fool's errand.


We do know the water flow rate. But anyway Method 1 is reliable, and the
problems with thermocouple placement are mostly imaginary, in my opinion,
and in my experience with similar thermocouples and hot pipes.


In Method 1: the calorimetry in the secondary was, in my opinion,
 inconclusive. The thermal transfer between the brass and the water, the air
 surrounding the brass, the unknown conductivity between the braided wire
 and the nut, the environment under the insulation, all make the
 thermocouple placement suspect . . .


Try placing at thermocouple on a hot pipe, in various spots, under various
covers. You will find the differences are insignificant.

People put temperature probes on pipe surfaces all the time in equipment
rooms. As far as I know, Rossi did this exactly the right way, putting it
under tape. That is the way I have seen it done by experienced HVAC people,
and the way it is recommended in manuals.

For a permanent installation they usually use a dial thermometer with the
probe inside the fluid, but there are plenty of installations with a
surface mounted sensor on a pipe. See, for example:

http://www.us.sbt.siemens.com/sbttemplates/library/pdf/129460.pdf

QUOTE: To ensure accuracy, the sensor must be
mounted under insulation, away from drafts. They recommend heavier
insulation that Rossi used. I have seen ones for sale with lighter
insulating tape than Siemens recommends, packaged in with the sensor. I do
not recall where . . .

Try it!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-07 Thread Robert Lynn

On 7 December 2011 21:51, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.comwrote:

 A lot of responses have already been kicked up by JC and MY, but I'd
 like to continue, if I may, to Jed.
 This is a long reply, and was in discussion of using the primary of the
 October 6th test in any considerations as to test validity.


Thank you Robert, that was a sensible and dispassionate summary that I
agree with.

While I am convinced that Ni H is working at commercially useful 1-10kW/kg
output levels based on results from Piantelli, Ahern, Arata, Miley,
Patterson et al as well as Rossi, Rossi has not conclusively demonstrated
that he is operating at the significantly higher 100kW/kg power levels that
he claims, and may have initially fooled even himself due to his bad
latent-heat-of-water based calorimetry.

As time passes and we get more back-story from the failed demos being done
for potentially big investors (who could have answered his financial
prayers but unfortunately for Rossi demanded proper experimental
technique), Rossi's ongoing bluster, delaying tactics and diversionary
behaviour do nothing but reinforce my impression that he is trying to hide
an inability to match his claimed performance - eg it only works reliably
for a few hours at a time, or only works at substantially lower power
levels.

In short he may have found himself trapped by his earlier excessive claims
that he now finds were in error.  It so it would be a pattern repeated from
other ventures in his career.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Of course you are correct if water is being forced out of the ECAT.  I see
 no reason to believe that that is the situation since an attempt was made
 to measure the water and some was captured.


But we don't know how successful this attempt was. If we believe the
engineer, then the output flow rate was equal to the input, and all he had
to do to be sure of this was to make sure liquid was coming out before the
onset of boiling. If you assume he is competent, then it is fair to assume
he would have checked that. In that case, the trap collected only 10% of
the liquid water before boiling started (12:30 - 12:35), when the output
was all liquid. That shows that the trap was ineffective even for liquid.
It would then have had no chance with an entrained mist.


 It should also be noted that Rossi and company had the input power set to
 180 kWatts during the initial portion of the self sustaining mode.  The
 ECATs should have been producing 1 MW under that condition before the power
 was shut down.


Where does that come from? If the output is just 6 times the input, then
why would it be 500kW when the input is zero? And why do earlier ecats give
30:1. In any case, there's no evidence it was 1 MW, and I don't buy it
based on some dubious 6:1 claim from Rossi. Especially since the point of
the test is to show the output, if only to the engineer. You can't use a
claimed COP to verify an output. That's circular reasoning.


 If that was the case, then twice as much water was being evaporated as
 inputted to the ECATs during that time.


Even if it were 1 MW, it would have to be 1 MW getting to the water, and
that requires heating thermal mass. Again, zero evidence. In fact, if 1 MW
were getting in to the water in a partly filled ecat, it would have reached
boiling much sooner.


 This is further evidence that they were not full of water and overflowing.


A claim that the COP is 6 is not evidence that the COP is 6, or that the
power is 500 kW, or that the ecats were not full, especially in
*contradiction* to the engineer's implicit claim that they were.


 Again, I do not need to apply the ignorant engineer card every time things
 do not add up.


But you do. You have to claim he was ignorant of the output flow rate, when
he in fact claimed he knew the output flow rate. And I submit that knowing
that the output flow rate was equal to the input flow rate (at least) is
much easier than knowing how effective that trap was.

All he needed to do to be sure the flow rate was equal to the input (at
least) was to observe water coming out before the onset of boiling. Surely
he was competent enough to know that.

To know the effectiveness of the trap for wet steam, he would have to send
steam of a known wetness through, and determine if it captured all the
water. And that would require an independent way to determine steam
wetness, which, even if it had been available, would have taken
considerable time to measure.

And it doesn't look like he paid much attention to the veracity of the trap
contents, when you consider that only one of the steam pipes had a trap,
and that the valve was closed at 3:00.


 The only way that anyone can suggest that the ECATs were full and
 overflowing is to assume bad test procedures.


And yet, the engineer and Rossi do more than suggest exactly that. They
assume it implicitly in the power calculation.

But I don't have a problem with assuming bad test procedures, especially
since:

The only way anyone can suggest that the ecats were *not* full before
boiling is to assume bad test procedures, because it contradicts the
engineers assumption.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat




 

Again, I do not need to apply the ignorant engineer card every time things do 
not add up.  



But you do. You have to claim he was ignorant of the output flow rate, when he 
in fact claimed he knew the output flow rate. And I submit that knowing that 
the output flow rate was equal to the input flow rate (at least) is much 
easier than knowing how effective that trap was.


All he needed to do to be sure the flow rate was equal to the input (at least) 
was to observe water coming out before the onset of boiling. Surely he was 
competent enough to know that.


To know the effectiveness of the trap for wet steam, he would have to send 
steam of a known wetness through, and determine if it captured all the water. 
And that would require an independent way to determine steam wetness, which, 
even if it had been available, would have taken considerable time to measure.


And it doesn't look like he paid much attention to the veracity of the trap 
contents, when you consider that only one of the steam pipes had a trap, and 
that the valve was closed at 3:00.

Give the poor guy a break.  He measured the input flow rate accurately.  You 
and I and everyone else would agree that the output flow rate and the input 
flow rate must be equal in the long term.  The engineer most likely did not 
know that there was a chance that the level of the water within the ECATs would 
vary during his test.  He was unwise assuming this since it is quite hard to 
safely control that parameter with Rossi's setup.  A well designed system would 
not have this occur.  As I am saying, most engineers would not expect a 
difference in output flow rate and input flow rates.  He could not read Rossi's 
mind any better than we can.

Should you hold it against the engineer that Rossi has a non standard system 
and that he does not even know himself what it is doing?  This is an unfair 
standard.  Had the test been conducted for a long enough time, then everyone 
would have been happy except for those who are convinced that water is the main 
output.

Now, do you wonder why the engineer would not have captured some water in his 
trap before the water had enough vapor within it to fly past the trap?   You 
must realize that the closed valve suggestion is not sensible.  We are speaking 
of an experienced guy here, not some yoyo off the street.  Maybe it was closed 
at 3:00, that is what you say.  Was it closed at 1:00?  Or how about at 4:00?  
This is not proof of anything and we both know it.

So, I assume the engineer was intelligent and knew what he was doing.  He was 
possibly faked out by the change of level within the ECATs, but this was a rare 
system and not normally encountered.

You assume that he was ignorant.  You suggest that he did not know how to set 
up a water trap in a system.  You think he might actually be an employee of 
Rossi, and there is no customer.  Are our positions equal?

Dave

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-07 Thread Giovanni Santostasi

Jed,
With all respect I cannot understand where you come from when you make such
comments:
laws of nature--
Rossi's claim is a violation of known laws of nature, that would be ok, if
he would make open the details of the experiment set up to third parties
even just in terms of reliable input and output measurements.

In main stream physics any results that would be a new result that would
show new physics needs to be demonstrated with a precision of 5 sigmas at
least.
Usually these results need to be achieved by more than one lab or research
groups before being considered seriously.

It took 10 years of internal continuous review of the results (performed by
several people) and many comparisons with an independent group working in
the same area, to report to the world the discovery of the acceleration of
the universe.

This is what is required when claims that are beyond known physics are made.

Given that Rossi is not allowing such level of testing and verification
(not even close), given that his claims are a violation of known laws of
physics and if true pointing to a new and not understood physics, the
scrutiny that he should be upheld has to be of the highest level.

His behavior and his past are a huge part of what we have available right
now in terms of accepting or not his claims. It is unfortunate, it would be
great if Rossi, as individual, would be made irrelevant by valid
experiments.
We would then talk about the data and leave Rossi's personal life alone.
But this is not possible at this moment.

People have pointed out how inadequate all Rossi's demonstrations are. None
of them can be considered definitive with the high standard required to
prove new physics.

Even if his experiments were introductory physics experiments demonstrating
well know physics from the 19th century I would not be completely happy on
how the data was acquired and analyzed. Let alone proving new physics.

So given what we have, putting the demonstration in a context is essential.
If the context told us about a credible, reliable scientist or engineer
with a long string of achievements and innovations, with academic honors or
successful commercial applications of his inventions, then the context
would have helped tremendously in accepting or at least in having a much
more open minded attitude towards the claims of a novel and world changing
physics.

BUT ...instead the context tells us of a shady character with many criminal
convictions for money embezzlement, fraudulent bankrupt, somebody that
polluted the environment without worrying for the safety of others,
somebody that has as his scientific qualifications a fake degree from a
diploma mill, somebody that trafficked in gold and silver to do money
laundry for the mafia, somebody that already promised innovative technology
and never delivered what was promised, and so on
It is not ONE THING: it is several, all fitting together in a puzzle that
shows a clear picture.

Yes, maybe every single piece (even if damning enough for most
professionals) taken by itself should not be enough to dismiss Rossi, but
when you take all these things together, plus his present behavior (and not
just the past) and the amazing and history changing claims then any sane
person should look at this story and being as much as careful as possible
if not defensive and skeptical by default.

It is Rossi duty to show he is not playing with people hope and desire. In
fact, I say that given what as promised he should metaphorically punished
(if it is not possible to punish him legally in some way) by the world
community if this would be proven to be indeed a scam.

Giovanni





On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 I have no idea of the probability that Rossi is honest.  I hope he is.


 He is not, I assure you. He often dissembles about personal matters. If
 the truth or falsity of this claim is predicated on his personal honesty,
 we must dismiss it.

 Fortunately, it is predicated on immutable laws of physics and first
 principle observations made by dozens of people who I know to be honest. It
 is predicated on the work of Piantelli and others, and on experimental
 results obtained with instruments supplied by other people such as
 Ampenergo and whoever bought the 1 MW reactor.

 You need to forget about Rossi's behavior and his personality. They have
 nothing to do with this issue. He could be the most dishonest person in the
 world but he cannot change the laws of nature.

 I do not understand why you are so obsessed with Rossi's personality to
 the point that you ignore physics.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


 Give the poor guy a break.


You should give him a break about the trap.


 He measured the input flow rate accurately.  You and I and everyone else
 would agree that the output flow rate and the input flow rate must be equal
 in the long term.  The engineer most likely did not know that there was a
 chance that the level of the water within the ECATs would vary during his
 test.


But you keep insisting on his competence. Now you're claiming that you're
so much smarter than him, because even from the internet, you can imagine
this possibility. Surely he kew the ecats hold 30 L. Surely he would know
they didn't have to be full. Surely he would know that he could easily
check the output to see if it was flowing.

Anyway, the point is that this is an easier and safer assumption than
assuming he knew how effective the trap was.


 He was unwise assuming this since it is quite hard to safely control that
 parameter with Rossi's setup.  A well designed system would not have this
 occur.  As I am saying, most engineers would not expect a difference in
 output flow rate and input flow rates.  He could not read Rossi's mind any
 better than we can.


In fact, you're suggesting he can't read it as well as you can. But I
disagree. Any engineer knowing the volume of the ecats, should have
expected a difference in flow rates (average) unless the ecats were full.


 Should you hold it against the engineer that Rossi has a non standard
 system and that he does not even know himself what it is doing?


If he doesn't check the output, when it is easy and obvious to do, then
yes, you should hold that against him, regardless of Rossi's standard. Why
should he expect a standard system anyway in a ground-breaking device. He
should check things as essential to the calculation of energy output as the
output flow rate.

  This is an unfair standard.


Nonsense. He's there to observe the output power. That involves the output
flow rate. How can expecting him to determine such an output flow rate with
more confidence than a remote observer on the internet can, be an unfair
standard?

Had the test been conducted for a long enough time, then everyone would
 have been happy except for those who are convinced that water is the main
 output.


Yes, well, it wasn't though.



 Now, do you wonder why the engineer would not have captured some water in
 his trap before the water had enough vapor within it to fly past the trap?


But he did. If you're referring to the 5 minutes from 12:30 to 12:35, he
collected about 10% of the water that would have flowed past. That's
probably pretty close to the ratio of the pipe diameters. And considering
the horizontal momentum, 10% sounds pretty plausible.



 You must realize that the closed valve suggestion is not sensible.


Why exactly? It was clearly closed at 3:00. Why does that not bother you?
How do we know it wasn't closed the whole time?


 We are speaking of an experienced guy here, not some yoyo off the street.


So, now he's competent. An experienced, competent guy would have checked
the flow rate. Or at least one incompetence is not more likely than the
other.


   Maybe it was closed at 3:00, that is what you say.  Was it closed at
 1:00?  Or how about at 4:00?  This is not proof of anything and we both
 know it.


Right. I'm not claiming proof. I'm claiming Rossi's failure to prove. To be
an effective trap it should be open all the time. The fact it's closed at
3:00 means we have no idea what it did any of the time. So its presence is
meaningless.


 So, I assume the engineer was intelligent and knew what he was doing.  He
 was possibly faked out by the change of level within the ECATs, but this
 was a rare system and not normally encountered.


I don't agree, as you know. To me the likelihood of him getting faked out
by a dummy trap is far higher than that he would get faked out by flow rate
effects of non-full ecats. It's not that abnormal, if remote observers can
figure out the possibility.


 You assume that he was ignorant.


As do you.


 You suggest that he did not know how to set up a water trap in a system.


You suggest he did not know how to determine flow rate.

But I don't suggest he didn't know how to set up a trap, only that he was
too accepting of Rossi's set up. And that's true, no matter what you think
of him. Even a trap to capture non-misty water, would be put at the bottom
of a U, and a steam separator would be used to capture mist. And he'd worry
about the second pipe. Did he even ask Rossi why there was no trap on that
pipe? Maybe they didn't even use the lower pipe, and redirected everything
through the upper pipe.


   You think he might actually be an employee of Rossi, and there is no
 customer.


Rossi has not given evidence contrary to that, and I think a demo that
depends on this sort of meta-information is a useless demo, especially for
something as profound as Rossi claims.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-07 Thread Jeff Sutton

Will you please stop cluttering this otherwise fine site with you endless
bickering. Just agree to disagree and wait for more evidence.
Please. Enough is enough.
On Dec 7, 2011 7:43 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


 Give the poor guy a break.


 You should give him a break about the trap.


  He measured the input flow rate accurately.  You and I and everyone else
 would agree that the output flow rate and the input flow rate must be equal
 in the long term.  The engineer most likely did not know that there was a
 chance that the level of the water within the ECATs would vary during his
 test.


 But you keep insisting on his competence. Now you're claiming that you're
 so much smarter than him, because even from the internet, you can imagine
 this possibility. Surely he kew the ecats hold 30 L. Surely he would know
 they didn't have to be full. Surely he would know that he could easily
 check the output to see if it was flowing.

 Anyway, the point is that this is an easier and safer assumption than
 assuming he knew how effective the trap was.


  He was unwise assuming this since it is quite hard to safely control
 that parameter with Rossi's setup.  A well designed system would not have
 this occur.  As I am saying, most engineers would not expect a difference
 in output flow rate and input flow rates.  He could not read Rossi's mind
 any better than we can.


 In fact, you're suggesting he can't read it as well as you can. But I
 disagree. Any engineer knowing the volume of the ecats, should have
 expected a difference in flow rates (average) unless the ecats were full.


 Should you hold it against the engineer that Rossi has a non standard
 system and that he does not even know himself what it is doing?


 If he doesn't check the output, when it is easy and obvious to do, then
 yes, you should hold that against him, regardless of Rossi's standard. Why
 should he expect a standard system anyway in a ground-breaking device. He
 should check things as essential to the calculation of energy output as the
 output flow rate.

   This is an unfair standard.


 Nonsense. He's there to observe the output power. That involves the output
 flow rate. How can expecting him to determine such an output flow rate with
 more confidence than a remote observer on the internet can, be an unfair
 standard?

 Had the test been conducted for a long enough time, then everyone would
 have been happy except for those who are convinced that water is the main
 output.


 Yes, well, it wasn't though.



 Now, do you wonder why the engineer would not have captured some water in
 his trap before the water had enough vapor within it to fly past the trap?


 But he did. If you're referring to the 5 minutes from 12:30 to 12:35, he
 collected about 10% of the water that would have flowed past. That's
 probably pretty close to the ratio of the pipe diameters. And considering
 the horizontal momentum, 10% sounds pretty plausible.



  You must realize that the closed valve suggestion is not sensible.


 Why exactly? It was clearly closed at 3:00. Why does that not bother you?
 How do we know it wasn't closed the whole time?


 We are speaking of an experienced guy here, not some yoyo off the street.


 So, now he's competent. An experienced, competent guy would have checked
 the flow rate. Or at least one incompetence is not more likely than the
 other.


   Maybe it was closed at 3:00, that is what you say.  Was it closed at
 1:00?  Or how about at 4:00?  This is not proof of anything and we both
 know it.


 Right. I'm not claiming proof. I'm claiming Rossi's failure to prove. To
 be an effective trap it should be open all the time. The fact it's closed
 at 3:00 means we have no idea what it did any of the time. So its presence
 is meaningless.


 So, I assume the engineer was intelligent and knew what he was doing.  He
 was possibly faked out by the change of level within the ECATs, but this
 was a rare system and not normally encountered.


 I don't agree, as you know. To me the likelihood of him getting faked out
 by a dummy trap is far higher than that he would get faked out by flow rate
 effects of non-full ecats. It's not that abnormal, if remote observers can
 figure out the possibility.


 You assume that he was ignorant.


 As do you.


  You suggest that he did not know how to set up a water trap in a system.


 You suggest he did not know how to determine flow rate.

 But I don't suggest he didn't know how to set up a trap, only that he was
 too accepting of Rossi's set up. And that's true, no matter what you think
 of him. Even a trap to capture non-misty water, would be put at the bottom
 of a U, and a steam separator would be used to capture mist. And he'd worry
 about the second pipe. Did he even ask Rossi why there was no trap on that
 pipe? Maybe they didn't even use the lower pipe, and redirected everything
 through the upper

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

No problem here, I was hoping for a short answer from the gentleman.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Jeff Sutton jsutton.sudb...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 7:48 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Will you please stop cluttering this otherwise fine site with you endless 
bickering. Just agree to disagree and wait for more evidence.
Please. Enough is enough.
On Dec 7, 2011 7:43 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Give the poor guy a break. 

You should give him a break about the trap.

He measured the input flow rate accurately.  You and I and everyone else would 
agree that the output flow rate and the input flow rate must be equal in the 
long term.  The engineer most likely did not know that there was a chance that 
the level of the water within the ECATs would vary during his test. 

But you keep insisting on his competence. Now you're claiming that you're so 
much smarter than him, because even from the internet, you can imagine this 
possibility. Surely he kew the ecats hold 30 L. Surely he would know they 
didn't have to be full. Surely he would know that he could easily check the 
output to see if it was flowing.

Anyway, the point is that this is an easier and safer assumption than assuming 
he knew how effective the trap was.

He was unwise assuming this since it is quite hard to safely control that 
parameter with Rossi's setup.  A well designed system would not have this 
occur.  As I am saying, most engineers would not expect a difference in output 
flow rate and input flow rates.  He could not read Rossi's mind any better than 
we can.

In fact, you're suggesting he can't read it as well as you can. But I disagree. 
Any engineer knowing the volume of the ecats, should have expected a difference 
in flow rates (average) unless the ecats were full.

Should you hold it against the engineer that Rossi has a non standard system 
and that he does not even know himself what it is doing?

If he doesn't check the output, when it is easy and obvious to do, then yes, 
you should hold that against him, regardless of Rossi's standard. Why should he 
expect a standard system anyway in a ground-breaking device. He should check 
things as essential to the calculation of energy output as the output flow rate.

  This is an unfair standard.  

Nonsense. He's there to observe the output power. That involves the output flow 
rate. How can expecting him to determine such an output flow rate with more 
confidence than a remote observer on the internet can, be an unfair standard?

Had the test been conducted for a long enough time, then everyone would have 
been happy except for those who are convinced that water is the main output.

Yes, well, it wasn't though.

Now, do you wonder why the engineer would not have captured some water in his 
trap before the water had enough vapor within it to fly past the trap?  

But he did. If you're referring to the 5 minutes from 12:30 to 12:35, he 
collected about 10% of the water that would have flowed past. That's probably 
pretty close to the ratio of the pipe diameters. And considering the horizontal 
momentum, 10% sounds pretty plausible.

You must realize that the closed valve suggestion is not sensible.  

Why exactly? It was clearly closed at 3:00. Why does that not bother you? How 
do we know it wasn't closed the whole time?

We are speaking of an experienced guy here, not some yoyo off the street.

So, now he's competent. An experienced, competent guy would have checked the 
flow rate. Or at least one incompetence is not more likely than the other.

  Maybe it was closed at 3:00, that is what you say.  Was it closed at 1:00?  
Or how about at 4:00?  This is not proof of anything and we both know it.

Right. I'm not claiming proof. I'm claiming Rossi's failure to prove. To be an 
effective trap it should be open all the time. The fact it's closed at 3:00 
means we have no idea what it did any of the time. So its presence is 
meaningless. 

So, I assume the engineer was intelligent and knew what he was doing.  He was 
possibly faked out by the change of level within the ECATs, but this was a rare 
system and not normally encountered.

I don't agree, as you know. To me the likelihood of him getting faked out by a 
dummy trap is far higher than that he would get faked out by flow rate effects 
of non-full ecats. It's not that abnormal, if remote observers can figure out 
the possibility.

You assume that he was ignorant. 

As do you.

You suggest that he did not know how to set up a water trap in a system.

You suggest he did not know how to determine flow rate. 

But I don't suggest he didn't know how to set up a trap, only that he was too 
accepting of Rossi's set up. And that's true, no matter what you think of

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

Jed,
 With all respect I cannot understand where you come from when you make
 such comments:
 laws of nature--
 Rossi's claim is a violation of known laws of nature . . .


Sure. I meant the *calorimetry* must follow the laws of nature. As Harry
Veeder wrote: Only the science of instrumentation should be bound by the
'laws of physics'.

If you do not admit that the results of an experiment can violate known
laws, there will be no progress.

To put it another way, older laws trump newer ones. If calorimetry and
thermodynamics prove that cold fusion does exist, you cannot point to the
newer laws governing plasma fusion to prove it does not exist, and that
calorimetry does not work. You have to conclude that a metal lattice is
nothing like the sun.


, that would be ok, if he would make open the details of the experiment set
 up to third parties even just in terms of reliable input and
 output measurements.


His measurements are reliable enough to be sure the effect is real. You do
not even need instruments to be sure the heat is real, and not chemical.
Granted, instrument readings are a lot more accurate. I agree it is a shame
he uses lousy instruments.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-07 Thread Giovanni Santostasi

We should not forget though that there is a gap here between input and
output and that is what happens inside the e-cat. It is not just some
mysterious process inside the lattice but everything that happens inside
the black box.
In normal circumstances we would be able to see what is inside the box and
take it apart but we are not allowed to do so.
We could trust Rossi in claiming that the box is not rigged, that there are
no tricks, but we cannot do that on face value (beside as a playful but not
very satisfactory exercise).
To be honest it is easier to invoke human nature, deviating behavior,
trickery than to accept, on the basis of what is given to us, new physics.
New physics would be the inevitable answer if we could eliminate without a
shade of a doubt any other (and simpler) explanation involving fraud and
scam.
Believing me I would be the first one to be so happy and excited if new
physics would one day would be the only possibility for the e-cat.
But I would rather err on the safe side (given Rossi behavior and history)
 and be pleasantly surprised than bitterly disappointed and heart broken by
a unscrupulous and antisocial individual.
Giovanni
Giovanni



On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jed,
 With all respect I cannot understand where you come from when you make
 such comments:
 laws of nature--
 Rossi's claim is a violation of known laws of nature . . .


 Sure. I meant the *calorimetry* must follow the laws of nature. As Harry
 Veeder wrote: Only the science of instrumentation should be bound by the
 'laws of physics'.

 If you do not admit that the results of an experiment can violate known
 laws, there will be no progress.

 To put it another way, older laws trump newer ones. If calorimetry and
 thermodynamics prove that cold fusion does exist, you cannot point to the
 newer laws governing plasma fusion to prove it does not exist, and that
 calorimetry does not work. You have to conclude that a metal lattice is
 nothing like the sun.


 , that would be ok, if he would make open the details of the experiment
 set up to third parties even just in terms of reliable input and
 output measurements.


 His measurements are reliable enough to be sure the effect is real. You do
 not even need instruments to be sure the heat is real, and not chemical.
 Granted, instrument readings are a lot more accurate. I agree it is a shame
 he uses lousy instruments.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


 To put it another way, older laws trump newer ones.


You mean like Newton's laws trump relativity and QM?


 If calorimetry and thermodynamics prove that cold fusion does exist, you
 cannot point to the newer laws governing plasma fusion to prove it does not
 exist, and that calorimetry does not work.


You know, the laws have always been around. It's just that we learn about
some sooner than others. And precedence has nothing to do with validity.
It's all about what is supported by evidence. And since evidence is
cumulative, usually newer laws trump older laws.

And you know that you're using what's been learned about nuclear physics to
even postulate cold fusion in the first place. But of course, you just take
the part you like. What's been learned about nuclear physics makes cold
fusion very unlikely. So, to accept it would require some pretty radical
surgery, and so, strong evidence is needed. No matter how much you like
calorimetry, the evidence to date doesn't cut it, because the claims would
be far more manifest than we've seen so far, if real.


 You have to conclude that a metal lattice is nothing like the sun.


Well, that's the point. Fusion works in the sun.



 His measurements are reliable enough to be sure the effect is real.


For you to be sure. And for a few others. Most of whom have no relevant
background. For most qualified scientists, they're not.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:


 In normal circumstances we would be able to see what is inside the box and
 take it apart but we are not allowed to do so.


That is incorrect. The box has been taken apart. Many people have seen
inside it.



 We could trust Rossi in claiming that the box is not rigged, that there
 are no tricks, but we cannot do that on face value (beside as a playful but
 not very satisfactory exercise).


We do not need to trust him. People have looked inside this reactor and
Rossi's other reactors enough to be certain there are no tricks. They have
not seen inside the cell (which is inside the reactor) but the volume of
the cell is too small for any tricks. Please review the discussion here and
the literature on cold fusion and you will see what I mean.

The same is true for other cold fusion experiments. The volume and mass of
the sample that produces the heat is far too small for the heat to be
chemical.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:


 In normal circumstances we would be able to see what is inside the box
 and take it apart but we are not allowed to do so.


 That is incorrect. The box has been taken apart. Many people have seen
 inside it.



 We could trust Rossi in claiming that the box is not rigged, that there
 are no tricks, but we cannot do that on face value (beside as a playful but
 not very satisfactory exercise).


 We do not need to trust him. People have looked inside this reactor and
 Rossi's other reactors enough to be certain there are no tricks. They have
 not seen inside the cell (which is inside the reactor) but the volume of
 the cell is too small for any tricks. Please review the discussion here and
 the literature on cold fusion and you will see what I mean.

 The same is true for other cold fusion experiments. The volume and mass of
 the sample that produces the heat is far too small for the heat to be
 chemical.

 - Jed


Once again what Mats Lewan said:



What I saw inside the Ecat is more or less what I published and what my
photos from the inside showed – a block covered with flanges of heat
exchanger type, I believe I said approximately 30x30x30 cm. There’s a photo
from above where you can see cable and gas feedthroughs from the outside
going into this block, which was bolted to the enclosing. Rossi told us
that beneath the flanges there was supposedly a block of three reactor
chambers, each 20x20x1 cm, enclosed by 4 cm shielding – I think he said
lead. That is possible, as is of course any other object of that size.



In theory I suppose he could have removed the flanges and the shielding to
show the reactors, but that would probably have taken some time.


So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-06 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2011-12-06 14:44, Peter Gluck wrote:


http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29


This is yet another skeptical paper which assumes that what takes place 
in cold fusion processes is as conventional nuclear fusion occurring 
in vacuum and naturally in stars, and therefore cannot be possible in 
tabletop devices due to several reasons.


I feel this is becoming a typical straw man argument for skeptics.

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-06 Thread Peter Gluck

A few good demos could make the skeptics to swallow their poisonous words
and to shut up. I hope eventually these demos will happen. Now I hope they
will happen at Defkalion.
Peter

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims 
 Collapsehttp://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php
 http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29

 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-06 Thread Berke Durak

Skeptics?  Can we please stop calling these people skeptics.  I am a skeptic.
This is not skepticism.  This is dogmatism.  We are the skeptics.  We
are skeptical
of official dogma that says that hundreds of scientists are
incompetent, frauds or
self-deluded and that you can't produce energy from CF/LENR/CANR/whatever
it turns out to be.
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-06 Thread Alain dit le Cycliste

there are interesting theoretical arguments.
If they are right it means that all Ni+H experiments are fraud, not only
e-cat and hyperions.

this is an all or nothing argument, for NiH reactions.

about their (seems good) stellar argument, that nickel cannot transmute to
copper in star for billions years, so cannot on earths in minutes...
I can add few excuse.
-first of all the current isotopic ration of Ni might be the consequence of
an equlibrium reaction, in a very hot system, under neutron flux...
-second, it seems that the shape of the metal lattice (surface,
temperature), and some other factor (catalysts, the CA- factor of
defkalion) is important to accelerate the reaction. maybe the condition,
high temperature, strong pressure, ionization is not good for the strange
quantum effect to happens...
the nucleus of a star may not be the best place to observe a
super-fluid/superconductor, or transistor effect.

so anyway, those arguments against NiH LENR are global.
when we know if it is true or false, there will be a big discovery in
physic or social science.

I won't be so surprised by either case.

2011/12/6 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com

The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims
Collapsehttp://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29

--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-06 Thread Roarty, Francis X

On Tuesday 12/6/11 Alain wrote [snip] I can add few excuse. -first of all the 
current isotopic ration of Ni might be the consequence of an equlibrium 
reaction, in a very hot system, under neutron flux...-second, it seems that the 
shape of the metal lattice (surface, temperature), and some other factor 
(catalysts, the CA- factor of defkalion) is important to accelerate the 
reaction. maybe the condition, high temperature, strong pressure, ionization is 
not good for the strange quantum effect to happens...
the nucleus of a star may not be the best place to observe a 
super-fluid/superconductor, or transistor effect. [/snip]

Alain, Great point regarding the shape of the metal lattice under high pressure 
and gravity in a star as opposed to here on earth. The critical geometry 
required to create this effect would be both crushed and melted. My ZPE 
perspective is that the opposition of these geometries to longer vacuum 
wavelengths lowers the vacuum energy density [a warp] as opposed to the 
crushing gravity [well] of a star. Any dilation factor in a star slows 
reactions while in a warp accelerates them making these low probability 
reactions more probable.
Fran


From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Alain dit le Cycliste
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 9:59 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

there are interesting theoretical arguments.
If they are right it means that all Ni+H experiments are fraud, not only e-cat 
and hyperions.

this is an all or nothing argument, for NiH reactions.


about their (seems good) stellar argument, that nickel cannot transmute to 
copper in star for billions years, so cannot on earths in minutes...
I can add few excuse.
-first of all the current isotopic ration of Ni might be the consequence of an 
equlibrium reaction, in a very hot system, under neutron flux...
-second, it seems that the shape of the metal lattice (surface, temperature), 
and some other factor (catalysts, the CA- factor of defkalion) is important to 
accelerate the reaction. maybe the condition, high temperature, strong 
pressure, ionization is not good for the strange quantum effect to happens...
the nucleus of a star may not be the best place to observe a 
super-fluid/superconductor, or transistor effect.

so anyway, those arguments against NiH LENR are global.
 when we know if it is true or false, there will be a big discovery in physic 
or social science.

I won't be so surprised by either case.
2011/12/6 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.commailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com
The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims 
Collapsehttp://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29

--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 A few good demos could make the skeptics to swallow their poisonous words
 and to shut up. I hope eventually these demos will happen. Now I hope they
 will happen at Defkalion.
 Peter


One can be, at the same time, agnostic about cold fusion/LENR and very
skeptical about Rossi.  It's hardly poisonous.  It's simply good
observation.Characterizing that as poisonous makes no sense.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-06 Thread Peter Gluck

I was speaking specifically about the article, its logic is poisonous,
typical post-logical thinking and mixing points of view.
Influential skeptics, on other hand are poisoning the funding sources of
New Energy.
But if you wish, I can retract 'poisonous' I am just writing an essay
about Rossi. Not black or white dualistic thinking.

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 A few good demos could make the skeptics to swallow their poisonous words
 and to shut up. I hope eventually these demos will happen. Now I hope they
 will happen at Defkalion.
 Peter


 One can be, at the same time, agnostic about cold fusion/LENR and very
 skeptical about Rossi.  It's hardly poisonous.  It's simply good
 observation.Characterizing that as poisonous makes no sense.




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-06 Thread Ahsoka Tano

Ethan Siegel is suggesting a rigged power cord to explain the self
sustained heat observation:
In fact, the entire observed effect of having your system continue to
generate heat even after it's been turned off is remarkably simple to rig.

Possible?

rigged power cord: http://db.tt/RFOa0EAa

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims 
 Collapsehttp://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:


 But if you wish, I can retract 'poisonous'


Well, it's just that it doesn't fit most skeptical criticism of Rossi any
more than does snake or clown with which Rossi is so fond of labeling
people.


 I am just writing an essay
 about Rossi. Not black or white dualistic thinking.


I'll be interested to read that but don't you think it may be premature?
Rossi has not revealed his hand yet.  Is there really much to say about him
at this point other than that?

By the way, the article has an interesting way of cheating the power-in
measurement.  See the last figure.  I don't think Rossi does this but I
can't rule it out.  In the photos, the line cord is taken apart and the
wire being measured looks like it's a single cable.  I suppose Rossi could
have made a special line cord with doubled conductors in each wire but
that's a bit far fetched though certainly not impossible.  But while I
don't think Rossi used that particular magic cheating method, I think
it's important to note that it's one that most of us didn't think of,
probably including Jed Rothwell.   Which reinforces my issue that it's not
possible to think of an anticipate every method by which Rossi could
cheat.   That's the main and overwhelming reason why testing has to be
independent and not involve Rossi's venue, his power supply, his coolant
supply and most of all his enthalphy measurement methods.  It's the issue
Jed seems to resist the most.

Jed challenges me to make the issue of whether or not Rossi is cheating
falsifiable -- using any method including sleight of hand magic.  Of
course, the theory that Rossi is faking (by *any* method) *is* falsified if
Rossi's device is proven to work independently of Rossi for long enough in
a properly calibrated set up.  Somehow that logic seems to slip by.

This (the altered line cord) is an example of a faking method that,
although it's an unlikely method in Rossi's case, would have been missed by
K  E, Lewan and most likely everyone else.

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat



No, that simple scenario is not possible. If you ran the circuit backwards, the 
current would not change; if you switched wires the ammeter would read zero, 
which it never has (it always showed the current for the controls and/or radio 
frequency generator).
Unfortunately, the input power is only spot-checked and can be varied when 
noone is looking. The double-lead theory is completely unnecessary if Rossi 
just kicks up the power when you're in the other room.  The fraud arguments 
are exhausting and futile.  A good number of Vortexans have spent a great deal 
of effort describing a very simple scenario to record total power in and total 
power out, in order to get a conclusive demonstration.  I personally laid out 
the simple evidence required prior to the October 6th demo; I know that Mr. 
Rothwell forwarded many concerns directly to Rossi prior to the test.
It didn't happen.  Rossi does not seem interested in conclusive tests.  
I'm anxiously awaiting more Defkalion and Piantelli information.  As for Rossi, 
I am no longer holding my breath.






Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:28:07 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
From: ashot...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Ethan Siegel is suggesting a rigged power cord to explain the self sustained 
heat observation: 
In fact, the entire observed effect of having your system continue to 
generate heat even after it's been turned off is remarkably simple to rig.


Possible?


rigged power cord: http://db.tt/RFOa0EAa


On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:


The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapse

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Robert Leguillon 
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:

  No, that simple scenario is not possible. If you ran the circuit
 backwards, the current would not change; if you switched wires the ammeter
 would read zero, which it never has (it always showed the current for the
 controls and/or radio frequency generator).


That (getting power to the control circuits) would only require a very thin
third wire inside the multiple conductor -- very doable though I agree,
unlikely.   One of the things non-magicians don't recognize is the length
and complexity of many illusions and the amount of work required to do good
stage magic.   Rossi may have been inspired by that.  But I agree, this
particular scenario is unlikely.  So how many others has nobody thought
of...  yet?

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-06 Thread Alan J Fletcher


At 08:37 AM 12/6/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:
By the way, the article has an interesting way of cheating the 
power-in measurement.  See the last figure.  I don't think Rossi 
does this but I can't rule it out.  In the photos, the line cord is 
taken apart and the wire being measured looks like it's a single 
cable.  I suppose Rossi could have made a special line cord with 
doubled conductors in each wire but that's a bit far fetched though 
certainly not impossible.


The January test also used a wattmeter (similar to US kilawatt).
I'll note it in my fakes paper, though.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-06 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 08:44 AM 12/6/2011, Peter Gluck wrote:

The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapse

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29

The article is a great example of hubris. Well-written for a lay
person, does explain the so-called mainstream view of cold fusion.
My interest is, of course, LENR and the evidence regarding its
existence. Ni-H and Rossi is a recent claim, about which there is way
too little evidence to come to much of any conclusions other than the
obvious: Rossi looks like a con man. Now, if we could make judgments
about nuclear physics based on how people look, ordinary people would
be experts on nuclear physics, eh?

Here is where the article starts to jump off the cliff of reasoning
from outcomes, of assuming the conclusion:

All of our successful attempts at generating nuclear fusion here on
Earth require similarly high pressures and/or temperatures to those
found at the core of each and every fusion-powered star. In
mainstream physics, there are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_confinement_fusionthree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_confinement_fusiontypes of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetized_target_fusionsetups
verified to create nuclear fusion, all of which are working towards
the (metaphorical)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holy%20grailholy grail
goal of the breakeven point. If you can reach and go beyond that
point, you'll produce more usable energy from your setup than you
put into it in order to create the fusion reaction.

But recently, attempts to create nuclear fusion with a relatively
low-pressure, low-temperature experiment -- what's commonly known as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusioncold fusion -- have been
making a lot of noise.

Notice the word all. Anyone who knows science should have alarms
going off when they come across that word. There is another word in
there, successful. What does that mean? Here, I'm guessing,
success might mean break-even. However, the three verified
setups haven't reached that goal, not in a verified way, at least.

Further, the context is that they are talking about attempts to
achieve fusion, and even one fusion reaction verified would be
success, even if it's far below breakeven. Bottom line, what they say
is just plain wrong. The clearest and least controversial example is
muon-catalyzed fusion. The controversy, then, is over whether or not
fusion catalyzed or arranged by other than muons is possible. What
they are not disclosing is the existence of a controversy, and, in
particular, they may not even be aware of it. There is a gap between
what most scientists believe on the matter of fusion, and what is
being published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals, not to mention
in other places. The extreme skepticism on cold fusion has
disappeared from the mainstream peer-reviewed literature. It is still
found in tertiary sources, in articles that do not actually
investigate the topic, that just repeat the conventional wisdom as
if that had anything to do with the real state of science.

Storms, Status of cold fusion (2010), Naturwissenschaften, October,
2010, stands. I'm not aware of any more recent review of the field of
the same stature as to detailed consideration of the evidence. There
is now a substantial body of work confirming that there is a reaction
(covered by the rubrik, Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect) that produces
heat and helium from deuterium, and if you can figure out a way to
produce helium from deuterium without fusion, well, you might get a
Nobel Prize just for that. The heat is correlated with the helium at,
within experimental error, the right value for deuterium fusion, but
that doesn't mean that the reaction is d+d - He-4. It just means
that the fuel is likely deuterium and the ash is helium, any
intermediary reaction starting from deuterium and ending with helium
will produce that ratio.

Some people quibble about whether or not, say, a series of reactions
that start with producing neutrons, which are then absorbed to
transmute elements, that might end up with helium, are fusion or
not. But that's not relevant here. The authors are really denying
LENR, low-energy nuclear reactions, but ignoring the massive
evidence, and they just focus on Rossi.

They state that Rossi is claiming nuclear fusion. No, he doesn't.
It's not clear what he claims. Mostly he's claiming heat. This is a
shallow article, ultimately.

[...] you've got to overcome the tremendous Coulomb barrier (the
electrical repulsion between nickel and hydrogen nuclei), which --
according to our knowledge of nuclear physics -- requires
temperatures and pressures not found naturally anywhere in the
Universe. Not in the Sun, not in the cores of the most massive
stars, and

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-06 Thread David Roberson


I suggest that the fact that the current into the resistive heater elements was 
measured also eliminates this kind of magic.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Dec 6, 2011 11:38 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat





On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 

But if you wish, I can retract 'poisonous' 


Well, it's just that it doesn't fit most skeptical criticism of Rossi any more 
than does snake or clown with which Rossi is so fond of labeling people.
 

I am just writing an essay
about Rossi. Not black or white dualistic thinking.



I'll be interested to read that but don't you think it may be premature?   
Rossi has not revealed his hand yet.  Is there really much to say about him at 
this point other than that? 


By the way, the article has an interesting way of cheating the power-in 
measurement.  See the last figure.  I don't think Rossi does this but I can't 
rule it out.  In the photos, the line cord is taken apart and the wire being 
measured looks like it's a single cable.  I suppose Rossi could have made a 
special line cord with doubled conductors in each wire but that's a bit far 
fetched though certainly not impossible.  But while I don't think Rossi used 
that particular magic cheating method, I think it's important to note that 
it's one that most of us didn't think of, probably including Jed Rothwell.   
Which reinforces my issue that it's not possible to think of an anticipate 
every method by which Rossi could cheat.   That's the main and overwhelming 
reason why testing has to be independent and not involve Rossi's venue, his 
power supply, his coolant supply and most of all his enthalphy measurement 
methods.  It's the issue Jed seems to resist the most.

Jed challenges me to make the issue of whether or not Rossi is cheating 
falsifiable -- using any method including sleight of hand magic.  Of course, 
the theory that Rossi is faking (by *any* method) *is* falsified if Rossi's 
device is proven to work independently of Rossi for long enough in a properly 
calibrated set up.  Somehow that logic seems to slip by.

This (the altered line cord) is an example of a faking method that, although 
it's an unlikely method in Rossi's case, would have been missed by K  E, Lewan 
and most likely everyone else.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-06 Thread Ahsoka Tano

Authors of the article The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims
Collapse :
*Ethan Siegel http://www.facebook.com/people/Ethan-Siegel/1207789153
is a theoretical
astrophysicisthttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=ASTdb_key=PHYdb_key=PREqform=ASTarxiv_sel=astro-pharxiv_sel=cond-matarxiv_sel=csarxiv_sel=gr-qcarxiv_sel=hep-exarxiv_sel=hep-latarxiv_sel=hep-pharxiv_sel=hep-tharxiv_sel=matharxiv_sel=math-pharxiv_sel=nlinarxiv_sel=nucl-exarxiv_sel=nucl-tharxiv_sel=physicsarxiv_sel=quant-pharxiv_sel=q-biosim_query=YESned_query=YESadsobj_query=YESaut_logic=ORobj_logic=ORauthor=siegel%2C+Ethan+Robject=start_mon=start_year=2003end_mon=end_year=2009ttl_logic=ORtitle=txt_logic=ORtext=nr_to_return=200start_nr=1jou_pick=ALLref_stems=data_and=ALLgroup_and=ALLstart_entry_day=start_entry_mon=start_entry_year=end_entry_day=end_entry_mon=end_entry_year=min_score=sort=SCOREdata_type=SHORTaut_syn=YESttl_syn=YEStxt_syn=YESaut_wt=1.0obj_wt=1.0ttl_wt=0.3txt_wt=3.0aut_wgt=YESobj_wgt=YESttl_wgt=YEStxt_wgt=YESttl_sco=YEStxt_sco=YESversion=1
 *
*(article) post is coauthored by Dr. Peter Thieberger, Senior
Physicist at Brookhaven
National Laboratory http://www.bnl.gov/world/.)*

Perhaps anyone who has not worked on LENR is considered as a lay person?

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:

 At 08:44 AM 12/6/2011, Peter Gluck wrote:

  The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapse


 The article is a great example of hubris. Well-written for a lay person,
 does explain the so-called mainstream view of cold fusion. My interest
 is, of course, LENR and the evidence regarding its existence.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I suggest that the fact that the current into the resistive heater
 elements was measured also eliminates this kind of magic.


I don't believe that was ever done.  It probably doesn't matter but if
anyone knows of it being done, I'd sure like to see it.

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat


For the simple wire-swap to have occurred, you would really need binary power 
states of on and off.  In the September and early October tests, as the power 
was never zero, you would have to get more creative to explain the non-zero 
amperage observed for the power controller and frequency generator when self 
sustain mode began. 
By no strech-of-the-imagination am I saying that Rossi's tests were conclusive. 
 I'm just stating that, no matter how simple and elegant, this method of fraud, 
as described, was not used.
 




Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:35:21 -0800
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
From: maryyu...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com




On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


I suggest that the fact that the current into the resistive heater elements was 
measured also eliminates this kind of magic.

I don't believe that was ever done.  It probably doesn't matter but if anyone 
knows of it being done, I'd sure like to see it.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

2011-12-06 Thread David Roberson

Mary, there are measurements conducted throughout the test of October 6.  See 
the attached: 
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29
Dave

-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Dec 6, 2011 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

I suggest that the fact that the current into the resistive heater elements was 
measured also eliminates this kind of magic.

I don't believe that was ever done.  It probably doesn't matter but if anyone 
knows of it being done, I'd sure like to see it.

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Here is a comment from Lewan Mats about this topic:



Hi Mary and Ahsoka,



Saw your discussion about power cords on Vortex. You can rule them out.



I made my own connection cord which I put in series, both at the main power
supply and between the blue control box and the resistor in the Ecat.

The connection cord was a standard 2 phase + ground, with the three single
wires uncovered to be able to use the clamps ampere meter. I measured the
current through all three wires regularly.



Another scam suggestion is having a hidden rectifier and using whole wave
rectified current, which would then be measured as lower than it really was
by a clamps ampere meter in AC position. The idea would be to use this at a
moment when you pretend to decrease the input current, but in reality you
don’t.

To rule that out I measured both current and tension in both AC and DC
position, regularly throughout the experiment.



To put it short – there’s no cheating at the input.

Feel free to share this on Vortex.



Mats

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Darn.  Between the vagaries of the gmail system and Vortex, half the time I
can end up responding to the wrong people.  Seems I did respond only to
Mats to what was a personal email to me and a few others and which Jed
posted on Vort.  OK.  So here is my reply, now public (sorry I got confused
-- my serum caffeine may be too low).

Reply to Mats Lewan:

Good job!  Thanks. Mats, I didn't think that the cheating method with the
power line was very likely because it would be very risky.   I'm thinking
Rossi may have a way of storing some of the preheat energy and maybe also a
way of generating energy other than LENR.  That and planned mis-measurement
of the output energy.Obviously, I don't know how he does it if he does
it.

An ongoing argument here is about the adequacy of the inspection done on
the device of October 6.If you read this, Mats, your opinion on that
would be appreciated along with a description of what was seen inside.
Also how you feel about the lack of a blank/calibration run ahead of the
test, using the electrical heater as a calibrating energy source before
hydrogen was added to the E-cat.  Wouldn't that rule out such issues as
thermocouple placement?   And about the possibility of running much longer
and why that was apparently not asked of Rossi.   Thanks!

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 Also how you feel about the lack of a blank/calibration run ahead of the
 test, using the electrical heater as a calibrating energy source before
 hydrogen was added to the E-cat.  Wouldn't that rule out such issues as
 thermocouple placement?


The best way to rule out problems with the thermocouple placement is to use
additional thermocouples placed elsewhere. That is what I urged Rossi to
do, before the test. He did not want to.

There was actually no problem with the placement, as shown by Houkes and by
the fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement. But
Rossi should have proved there was no problem, by using multiple
instruments at various different locations.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat


This appears to be the Houkes data that you're referring to:
http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx
 
I cannot open this file.  I get a zip with dissociated .xml's.  
I know that I'd quickly discounted it in the past, as it seemed to ignore the 
conductivity between the probe and the nut and the hot air pocket formed 
underneath the foil insulation.  Maybe I'd discounted it too quickly.  Alan 
Fletcher's SPICE models were interesting, and showed that the thermocouple 
placement WAS important.  I assumed that you ignored those results because they 
were detrimental to Rossi.
Alas, he's announced that he's given up the model; the result was very 
sensitive to the coupling between water and copper -- and he could get any 
value he wanted for a delta-T error between zero and +10 (and beyond) : twice 
the value of delta-T itself.
 
So, let's review Haukes analysis if you have it in a useable form...
 



Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:14:22 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:

 
Also how you feel about the lack of a blank/calibration run ahead of the test, 
using the electrical heater as a calibrating energy source before hydrogen was 
added to the E-cat.  Wouldn't that rule out such issues as thermocouple 
placement?


The best way to rule out problems with the thermocouple placement is to use 
additional thermocouples placed elsewhere. That is what I urged Rossi to do, 
before the test. He did not want to.


There was actually no problem with the placement, as shown by Houkes and by the 
fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement. But Rossi 
should have proved there was no problem, by using multiple instruments at 
various different locations.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat


But, I must say that your allusion to 
the fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement
is just hogwash.  The secondary calorimetric observations cited previously were 
entirely contingent upon the acceptance of the first.  This is a circular 
argument.
 



From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 16:51:40 -0600





This appears to be the Houkes data that you're referring to:
http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx
 
I cannot open this file.  I get a zip with dissociated .xml's.  
I know that I'd quickly discounted it in the past, as it seemed to ignore the 
conductivity between the probe and the nut and the hot air pocket formed 
underneath the foil insulation.  Maybe I'd discounted it too quickly.  Alan 
Fletcher's SPICE models were interesting, and showed that the thermocouple 
placement WAS important.  I assumed that you ignored those results because they 
were detrimental to Rossi.
Alas, he's announced that he's given up the model; the result was very 
sensitive to the coupling between water and copper -- and he could get any 
value he wanted for a delta-T error between zero and +10 (and beyond) : twice 
the value of delta-T itself.
 
So, let's review Haukes analysis if you have it in a useable form...
 




Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:14:22 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:

 
Also how you feel about the lack of a blank/calibration run ahead of the test, 
using the electrical heater as a calibrating energy source before hydrogen was 
added to the E-cat.  Wouldn't that rule out such issues as thermocouple 
placement?


The best way to rule out problems with the thermocouple placement is to use 
additional thermocouples placed elsewhere. That is what I urged Rossi to do, 
before the test. He did not want to.


There was actually no problem with the placement, as shown by Houkes and by the 
fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement. But Rossi 
should have proved there was no problem, by using multiple instruments at 
various different locations.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:

 This appears to be the Houkes data that you're referring to:

 http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx

 I cannot open this file.  I get a zip with dissociated .xml's.
 I know that I'd quickly discounted it in the past . . .


That is in Microsoft Excel format. I will try converting it to Acrobat.


But, I must say that your allusion to
 the fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement
 is just hogwash.  The secondary calorimetric observations cited previously
 were entirely contingent upon the acceptance of the first.  This is a
 circular argument.


I do not see what you mean. Method 1 is the flow rate and temperature
difference in the cooling loop. Method 2 is the flow rate of the fluid
coming from the reactor, with the assumption that the fluid was all
vaporized, which is reasonable given the temperature. I do not see how one
can be dependent or contingent on the other. Method 1 would work just as
well even if the fluid coming from the reactor was not vaporized, or not
close to boiling.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat

Here is a version of Houkes in Acrobat format. This has some problems:

http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.pdf

The original in Excel format is better:

http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat