Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
2010/3/14 Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com: At 02:35 AM 3/14/2010, you wrote: Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work? I don't think he would want to. Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it? Or one would have to imagine that Focardi himself has been conned. Note that multi-kW excess heat must be quite easy to fake in this particular device, with its built-in heating resistor. For example, add AC current of a higher frequency than the meter's bandwidth. Is there any support on this research such as a published paper or a conference presentation or is it just this blog site that is made to look like a journal? Not that I know, apart from the patent application which of course isn't valid support either. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
Michel Jullian wrote: Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it? No. The authors are aware of this paper. It is really their work. Or one would have to imagine that Focardi himself has been conned. Note that multi-kW excess heat must be quite easy to fake in this particular device, with its built-in heating resistor. For example, add AC current of a higher frequency than the meter's bandwidth. I do not think this method could make 80 W look like 3,000 W. Most meter have high bandwidth; I have never heard of high frequency AC adding more than a fraction of 1% to the total. You would have to design and build specialized equipment to put 97% of the electricity into the cell with high frequency AC. And as a practical matter, how would you do this? Sneak some equipment into the lab at night? Bribe a lab assistant? How would you keep Focardi from doing some elementary cross checking to find out? This sounds like something from a made-for-TV thriller. If there is a con involved, Focardi must be part of it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
If they have equal shares in this work, why isn't Focardi on the patent? Michel 2010/3/15, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Michel Jullian wrote: Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it? No. The authors are aware of this paper. It is really their work. Or one would have to imagine that Focardi himself has been conned. Note that multi-kW excess heat must be quite easy to fake in this particular device, with its built-in heating resistor. For example, add AC current of a higher frequency than the meter's bandwidth. I do not think this method could make 80 W look like 3,000 W. Most meter have high bandwidth; I have never heard of high frequency AC adding more than a fraction of 1% to the total. You would have to design and build specialized equipment to put 97% of the electricity into the cell with high frequency AC. And as a practical matter, how would you do this? Sneak some equipment into the lab at night? Bribe a lab assistant? How would you keep Focardi from doing some elementary cross checking to find out? This sounds like something from a made-for-TV thriller. If there is a con involved, Focardi must be part of it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:simulation of fractional hydrogen ashless
Robin You have identified a missing link in my education - I was sure a covalent bond released a photon in transferring to a lower energy state just like an electron falling to a lower orbital. After Robin's comment about 3body collisions I went looking for info on covalent bonds and the photon emission I wrongly assumed. All these years I though a reduced energy state equated to an orbital dropping to a lower orbit but apparently not. This doesn't change my premise regarding the relativistic cavity being the energy source that accelerates these atoms but it does mean I have to modify the rules for emission of photons or show an alternate energy transfer. Any citation or better keywords to search on the 3 body collision to produce photons would be appreciated - for Now I simply removed photon emissions from covalent bonds formed outside the cavity form the Sim and changed the description for emissions inside to if two different fractional orbitals form a fractional h2 molecule they give off what appears to be a blue photon from our perspective outside the cavity - This may still be wrong and the 3 body requirement may be the same inside the cavity for different fractional orbitals as well but it buys me some time to investigate a proper fix for the simulation and there is the possibility that collisions between orbitals of different fractional values will cause one of them to gain and lose energy sufficient to produce a photon as they translate to a common fractional value in their diatomic state. Question: If you assume for a moment that change in Casimir force could disassociate a covalent bond and restore the atoms to normal atomic orbital strength.where does the excess energy go as the molecule oscillates between bound and unbound states? Could the 3 body interaction be accomplished with just hydrogen and hydrogen ions since the atoms are essentially already inside a giant catalyst? I think I need to go back and take a more careful look at the Black Light Flash animation for this process. Regards Fran http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/7200-relativistic-interpretation-casimir -effect.html-1
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
Michel Jullian wrote: If they have equal shares in this work, why isn't Focardi on the patent? I did not say they have equal shares. I have no idea how much each contributed. I said I am sure Focardi knows about this paper. Anyway, that patent seems worthless, for the reasons already discussed here. I mentioned elementary cross checking. Calibration, in other words. The paper has no details about the experiment so I do not know if they did this, but I have never heard of an experiment without calibration. Focardi is not a fool or an amateur, although this paper seems amateur. The other thing I should mention is that a good power meter is immune to the high frequency AC problem. Expensive meters will catch all input power, no matter how high or irregular the frequency. They typically use three methods of measuring power including our old friend calorimetry. The power flowing through the system heats up a small element and the temperature is converted to a power level. This is an an analog method. It is slow and imprecise, but accurate and immune to sampling errors. It will not detect very low power. Unfortunately I have no idea what sort of meter Focardi and Rossi use. They could have eliminated many doubts about this experiment by supplying a few details, a schematic, and a photo. If they would tell us what sort of power supply they are using, or include a photo of it, we could see whether it can supply 3,000 W. If you need only 80 W input, why would you use such a big power supply? On the other hand, they should calibrate through the entire range of output power before declaring this is 3,000 W and not 2,800 W or 3,500 W. The Patterson light water cell demonstration that I saw years ago in California had many problems. Really, it was one of the worst experimental setups I have ever seen. I was deeply disappointed and mad as a hornet -- especially after they told me I could not describe it in detail or do some cross-checking with my own instruments. I told them I would take the next plane home if those are the rules. They rescinded. Anyway, it was made of ridiculously low-budget, unreliable parts, and it failed drastically in the middle of the demo, as I described in the report. But the fact that it was so cheap, and rudimentary, also conferred a few advantages. For example, the power supply was a Radio Shack battery eliminator. That was the only source of input power to the system. I had a Radio Shack power supply just like that, and I know for a fact it could not have produced more than a few watts, whereas the cell was definitely producing ~1,000 W. The other advantage was the very simplicity of the thing meant I could confirm it with equally simplistic, crude, 18th century instruments: a mercury thermometer, a stop-watch, and a graduated 1-liter cylinder. I measured the temperature of the water in the tank and stirred it to confirm the inlet temperature. Then I collected the flowing electrolyte for a fixed period of time in the cylinder. I stirred it up with the thermometer, and thereby confirmed the flow rate and the outlet temperature. I also used a Radio Shack thermistor good to 0.1 deg C. Half-way through the test the setup began to fail. As I recall, their flow rate measurement was off. The flow was plugged up and the temperature climbing rapidly. But anyway, with my crude cross-checking this was obvious. I am sure the test before and after that was valid. Plus I am sure the cell was producing *far* more heat than that Radio Shack power supply could supply, because it was palpably hot, and the power supply would have melted or burst into flames if it was producing that much electricity. So, to this day, I do not know of any reason to doubt Patterson's results . . . except for the obvious reason that it cannot be replicated. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
Michel Jullian meant that the built-in built-in resistance heater might go up to 3 kW. There is no other input power. The heater is only needed to bring the temperature up to the temperature at which the Ni reacts. I guess that would be the temperature at which it readily absorbs hydrogen. I do not think a heater requires any kind of fancy AC. It would be DC. I assume they are using the same basic technique they have been doing all these years, only using finely divided Ni instead of an Ni rod with mysterious surface characteristics that no one else can replicate. Here is a long paper describing their previous experiments: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdfhttp://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf Here is a well-known paper that casts doubt on Focard's calorimetry, but only method A described in the current paper, not B or C: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CerronZebainvestigat.pdfhttp://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CerronZebainvestigat.pdf If these authors are right, it shows that you can make a large mistake with technique A. That doesn't surprise me. Anyway, this 80 W strikes me as odd, but that may only be a function of my ignorance of this technique, and the lack of detail in the paper. But what does this 80 W mean? Maybe this means it takes only about 80 W to bring it up to the operating temperature. That would mean the cell is well insulated. In that case, how do they keep from drastically from overheating when it produces 3 kW? Or, maybe this means it takes 3 kW from the heater to bring the cell up the recommended operating temperature, but after the reaction starts up they can reduce the input power down to 80 W and maintain the high temperature. That would be a dandy way to do the experiment. You might say it is self-calibrating, making it difficult to argue that the input power is causing a false reading. However, if this is what is happening, it raises a huge question. An elephant-in-the-room sized question. Why not insulate the cell a little more, and dial the input power all the way back to zero? In other words, why not make the thing fully self-sustaining?!? That would eliminate any question about input power. Why is there any input to output ratio in this paper at all? Frankly, the whole thing is a confounded mystery to me. But as I said, I have been advised to reserve judgement and await developments because it may be better than it looks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
I wrote: The Patterson light water cell demonstration . . . was made of ridiculously low-budget, unreliable parts, and it failed drastically in the middle of the demo, as I described in the report. Cravens briefed me before I went to California, so I had some idea what the demo was like. I knew the flow rate, Delta T and so on. That's why I brought the thermometer and stop watch. With a more sophisticated calorimeter you can't even reach the flowing water. It is all sealed up, as you see on the 60 Minutes program. Although, it is worth mentioning, both McKubre and Storms have used a siphon and weight scale in addition to a flow meter. You can watch the siphon fill up and dump out periodically, and see for yourself what the flow rate is. That's exactly what I did with the stop watch and graduated cylinder. You don't have to trust the instruments. (With the siphon, the weight scale is tied into the computer which records of the increase in weight of water, and you ignore the periods when it suddenly decreases, and the siphon dumps out.) I was disappointed in the cheap implementation. So was George Miley. But the technique is fine, and Cravens did a good job at several things that have caused problems in other people's calorimeters. For example, the flow rate was fast and there were mixers installed in front of both the inlet and outlet thermocouples. The thermocouples were good quality. I asked Cravens why on earth they made the thing so cheap looking, with such hokey stuff. For a few thousand bucks more they could have made it far more convincing, with a precision flow meter and so on. They did that for an ICCF conference a year later. Cravens said to me they told me to make it convincing but not too convincing. For political reasons. That was one of the nuttiest moments in the history of cold fusion -- a history replete with nuttiness. I could confirm it with equally simplistic, crude, 18th century instruments: a mercury thermometer . . . I meant an alcohol thermometer. I got it from a high-school science class supply company. It was reliable and accurate. I am sure the test before and after that was valid. I mean before and after the heat excursion caused when the flow got plugged up. As Ed Storms emphasizes, calorimetry gets much more complicated during a heat excursion, or during start up, or in other rapidly changing conditions. Before and after this event the heat was reasonably steady over periods. I think it was steady enough to establish the power level with confidence. It was stable enough to be sure the heat could not be coming from that power supply, which as I recall was rated at 5 W maximum. When I listed light water experiments a few days ago, I should have included Patterson. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
Notice the programmer's bias in this statement: (With the siphon, the weight scale is tied into the computer which records of the increase in weight of water, and you ignore the periods when it suddenly decreases, and the siphon dumps out.) Yes, the numbers on my screen are going down. Something's happening out there. Hey, look up! Yoo-hoo! The siphon's dumping. The siphon dumps and the numbers suddenly decrease, not the other way around. That's pretty funny. On the other hand, instruments and computers do sometimes generate scads of fascinating numbers that turn to have no connection to physical reality. Or at least, not the connection the researcher imagines. See the Cerron-Zeballos paper: We found the results previously published to be consistent with our observations; namely we measured higher temperatures for the same input power when hydrogen is absorbed during a heating cycle. Nevertheless this temperature rise does not appear to correspond to an increase in heat production. . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
I wrote: Anyway, this 80 W strikes me as odd, but that may only be a function of my ignorance of this technique, and the lack of detail in the paper. But what does this 80 W mean? Maybe this means it takes only about 80 W to bring it up to the operating temperature. That would mean the cell is well insulated. In that case, how do they keep from drastically from overheating when it produces 3 kW? . . . I have confused the issue here. Let me set the record straight. As you see in the paper, it is not 80 W at all. In the first 1-day test period in Table 1 they list 0.2 kWh of input energy, not power. And that would be 8 W average if it was turned on the whole 24 hours. Eight, not 80. My arithmetic is hopeless. Anyway, I assumed that was steady power the whole day but maybe it was turned up to 200 W for the first hour and it was off the rest of the time. Who knows. You would think they would tell us if that's how it works. What would they need 8 W of steady input power for? Am I missing something here? Test #4 is 14 days long: Feb. 17 - March 3, 2009. Input energy is much higher: 5.1 kWh. Assuming that is steady, power is ~15 W. Test #5 is 52 days long, 18.54 kWh. Again, that works out to be ~15 W if it is steady. In other words, input energy appears to be roughly proportional to the duration of the experiment. They do not appear to giving it a burst of heat at the beginning and letting is self-sustain. If they were, all of the tests would show roughly 0.2 kWh input, I suppose. - Jed
[Vo]:OFF TOPIC Wozniak reports Prius problem
This is off topic but it is related to technology, and to the latest bruouhaha in the news. People have called into question the report made by James Sikes that his Prius went out of control for several miles. In the interest of disseminating technically accurate information, here is a comment I made about that elsewhere: Sikes does seem suspicious but it is much too early to brand him a con artist. I drive a Prius, but I am sorry to say there are credible reports of the Prius running out of control. Most notably, Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of Apple Computer, reported that his Prius went out of control. However, the incident was nothing like what Sikes reported. Quote: Wozniak said he was surprised several months ago when his 2010 Toyota Prius started accelerating on its own -- to as much as 97 mph -- when he used cruise control to increase the vehicle's speed. He said he had to tap the brakes to stop the car from accelerating. Wozniak is a superb engineer and one the most honest and decent people in public life. I have no doubt he is telling the truth. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
At 01:46 AM 3/15/2010, you wrote: 2010/3/14 Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com: At 02:35 AM 3/14/2010, you wrote: Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work? I don't think he would want to. Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it? Or one would have to imagine that Focardi himself has been conned. Right. That's not possible. What a relief. Note that multi-kW excess heat must be quite easy to fake in this particular device, with its built-in heating resistor. For example, add AC current of a higher frequency than the meter's bandwidth. Is there any support on this research such as a published paper or a conference presentation or is it just this blog site that is made to look like a journal? Not that I know, apart from the patent application which of course isn't valid support either. Ok...thanks. My next question is how the whole buzz on this started...obviously there was the Journal of Nuclear Physics Web site. But who propagated that around? Anybody know? I have received several queries on this matter from multiple sources from several countries in Europe and in the U.S. Something/someone triggered/launched a viral response. I do not have any clue at the moment what/who did so. S
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
Steven Krivit wrote: My next question is how the whole buzz on this started...obviously there was the Journal of Nuclear Physics Web site. But who propagated that around? Anybody know? The usual suspects. Me and many others. Anyone interested in cold fusion will have heard about this by now. It is either an exciting new development, or a mistake. We have seen a good many of both. Focardi is widely known. He has published in important journals. Everyone familiar with the literature knows about him. They probably also know that Cerron-Zeballos called into question his work, and that others have had difficulty replicating. However, despite the fact that doubts have been raised about his work, I take him seriously, and I would take notice of any news or new paper from him. Naturally, I will pass on this news to everyone I know -- as I did. Why wouldn't I? I have asked permission to upload the paper to LENR-CANR.org. I also told him there is a spelling error in it. I have not heard back yet. I have received several queries on this matter from multiple sources from several countries in Europe and in the U.S. Something/someone triggered/launched a viral response. Why viral? Why not just say it is the usual cold fusion grapevine discussing a result? After they uploaded the paper Focardi and Rossi must have told someone, who told someone else, who told me. I heard it from a half-dozen people. There are only a small number of people in this field, and we are bound to hear about anything that happens, sooner or later. In a newsletter for palladium speculators, someone recently wondered if the upcoming ACS meeting will reveal any breakthroughs or surprises. I felt like telling them there are never any surprises in this field. We all hear about everything long before it is published. However, it is not good form to blab about these things because they might turn out to be a mistake. There is no harm in making a mistake, and no embarrassment, as long as you do not get excited and declare Eureka in public prematurely, before you realize you goofed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
Hold everything. I am wrong again. On p. 3 it says: Some examples of the results obtained with this system (method A) in brief periods (1-1,5 hours) are reported in lines 1-3 of the Table 1. So, for the first experiment, 0.2 kWh over 1 to 1.5 hours is somewhere between 133 to 200 W. So what the heck is going on in the other experiments?!? Frankly, this is annoying. Why 1 - 1.5 hours anyway? Which is it? 1 or 1.5? Why not specify for each row? Why not report average power? Does anyone here see anything about input power other than heater power? The patent mentions a Laser beam temperature measuring device: Raytheon, USA but I see nothing about about laser or heat stimulation. I have read through this paper and patent several times. I find them poorly organized and inscrutable. Plus, it is not good form to mix in theoretical speculation with a description of the experiment or a patent's description of the device. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Wozniak reports Prius problem
On 03/15/2010 06:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: This is off topic but it is related to technology, and to the latest bruouhaha in the news. People have called into question the report made by James Sikes that his Prius went out of control for several miles. In the interest of disseminating technically accurate information, here is a comment I made about that elsewhere: Sikes does seem suspicious but it is much too early to brand him a con artist. I drive a Prius, but I am sorry to say there are credible reports of the Prius running out of control. Most notably, Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of Apple Computer, reported that his Prius went out of control. However, the incident was nothing like what Sikes reported. Quote: Wozniak said he was surprised several months ago when his 2010 Toyota Prius started accelerating on its own -- to as much as 97 mph -- when he used cruise control to increase the vehicle's speed. He said he had to tap the brakes to stop the car from accelerating. Wozniak is a superb engineer and one the most honest and decent people in public life. I have no doubt he is telling the truth. But Woz's description, as quoted here, is of a malfunctioning cruise control, which none the less responded to a tap on the brakes by letting go, just as it's supposed to do. It could be something as simple as a failure of the cruise control's speed sensor. That is certainly *not* a case of a car accelerating out of control, in any normal sense of the phrase out of control! Furthermore, a cruise control malfunction of that sort is probably the least dangerous form of unintended acceleration, because it happens at the moment when you're engaging cruise, which is likely to occur at a moment when you are paying attention to the controls and are in a reasonably clear spot on the highway. When you're in a tight situation, heavy traffic, or dangerous conditions, you're probably not going to be engaging the cruise control. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Wozniak reports Prius problem
Wozniak also said that he thinks the problem is a software one, rather than a mechanical one. Cheers, Lawry On Mar 15, 2010, at 6:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: This is off topic but it is related to technology, and to the latest bruouhaha in the news. People have called into question the report made by James Sikes that his Prius went out of control for several miles. In the interest of disseminating technically accurate information, here is a comment I made about that elsewhere: Sikes does seem suspicious but it is much too early to brand him a con artist. I drive a Prius, but I am sorry to say there are credible reports of the Prius running out of control. Most notably, Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of Apple Computer, reported that his Prius went out of control. However, the incident was nothing like what Sikes reported. Quote: Wozniak said he was surprised several months ago when his 2010 Toyota Prius started accelerating on its own -- to as much as 97 mph -- when he used cruise control to increase the vehicle's speed. He said he had to tap the brakes to stop the car from accelerating. Wozniak is a superb engineer and one the most honest and decent people in public life. I have no doubt he is telling the truth. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Wozniak reports Prius problem
Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Wozniak also said that he thinks the problem is a software one, rather than a mechanical one. [. . . teed up and . . .] Yeah? Well he's a hardware guy. As a software guy let me assure you it's gotta be a mechanical problem. Seriously, there is no doubt that what he described is far less serious than what Sikes reported. Still, we have to be cautious not to dismiss reports or accuse people of being con artists in situations like this. There have been too many mindless accusations of fraud in cold fusion and also in things like crop circles, cryptozoology and so on. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
Okay, I got a gracious response from Focardi and Rossi. I have permission to upload the paper. A low level of input power is needed, but they would prefer not to discuss the details yet. It will be described in a new publication soon. Let's give them time to get their act together and not put pressure on them to reveal papers they are still working on. I think the first paper would have benefited with more editing, especially by a native speaker of English. The language gap is a real problem. I am reminded of that every time I write a letter or paper in Japanese. I still don't think you should mix theory and experiment in the same paper. That's a style problem, not a language problem. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Wozniak reports Prius problem
Also on this subject, perhaps it is time for Toyota to re-think their advertising slogan: Moving Forward - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Wozniak reports Prius problem
I looked up cryptozoology on wikipedia. There is also entry for cryptobotany. Perhaps we should start one for cryptophysics?! Harry From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, March 15, 2010 11:57:26 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Wozniak reports Prius problem Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Wozniak also said that he thinks the problem is a software one, rather than a mechanical one. [. . . teed up and . . .] Yeah? Well he's a hardware guy. As a software guy let me assure you it's gotta be a mechanical problem. Seriously, there is no doubt that what he described is far less serious than what Sikes reported. Still, we have to be cautious not to dismiss reports or accuse people of being con artists in situations like this. There have been too many mindless accusations of fraud in cold fusion and also in things like crop circles, cryptozoology and so on. - Jed __ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
[Vo]:Cryptophysics
http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2008/08/cryptophysicists.html __ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Wozniak reports Prius problem
LOL On Mar 16, 2010, at 12:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Also on this subject, perhaps it is time for Toyota to re-think their advertising slogan: Moving Forward - Jed
