Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:18 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: Gee, I guess their behavior seems highly suspicious :-))) It seemed a little evasive, but in spite of that, in 1904 the prestigious journal Science wrote: The newspapers of December 18 contained the announcement that Wilbur Wright had flown a distance of 3 miles with an aeroplane propeled by a 16-horse power, four-cylinder, gasoline motor, the whole weighing more than 700 pounds…. But to the student of aeronautics, and particularly to those who had followed the careful scientific experiments with aeroplanes which were being made by Orville and Wilbur Wright, it meant an epoch in the progress of invention and achievement, perhaps as great as that when Stevenson first drove a locomotive along a railroad. They proceed to admit wide skepticism because of many failures, but then say (remember, in 1904): Mr. Wright's success in rising and landing safely with a motor-driven aeroplane is a crowning achievement showing the possibility of human flight. Nothing like that has ever appeared in Science about cold fusion, or about Rossi. They clearly actively avoided the press until the were really ready in 1908, when their demonstration left no doubt. Rossi has claimed working ecats for 4 years or so, and claimed to have heated a factory with one for 2 years. He didn't invite the press until his big show in Jan 2011. He has since had a dozen demos with invited press *with* video cameras, and with invited scientists. But although he has claimed he is ready for the marketplace, whereas the Wrights clearly weren't, Rossi's demo falls far short of satisfying the skeptics, let alone catapulting him onto the world stage. And instead of actually *showing* the public what an ecat can do, by using it to heat something, or to do some obvious work, he sends all the claimed energy down a drain or into the sky, and then reports measured temperatures, requiring his audience to trust his measurements. The Wrights in 1908 did not depend on trust. They showed the world how far they could jump.
Re: [Vo]:Rossis Catalyst = RF+DC?
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: I remember a graduate student in a group in which I was a postdoc, crying (crying!) over a series of IR spectra that resulted from her latest series of experiments, saying I will never graduate, this system just does not work, everything just turns to crap. I looked it over and told her to go show them to the prof. He's going to hug you for these. It was not crap at all, the reaction was not stopping where supposed but continuing in an unexpected and new way forming new species until that point never observed. In other words, a discovery (published on the Journal of the American Chemical Society) instead of a third decimal quantification of a known phenomenon (to be published at most in a small journal). But it was going to be tossed out as crap. But it wasn't. The value may have been overlooked by a graduate student, but both you and the professor recognized it. And you seemed to think it was obvious enough to be sure the professor would recognize it. Obviously it's true that sometimes real phenomena are missed or dismissed as crap when they are not expected, but H-Ni has not just been looked at by a graduate student. It has been widely and extensively studied by very many people. And fusion, or the claimed heat from nuclear reactions, is not a subtle thing. If something had an energy density a million times higher than could be explained by chemistry, it's not likely to have been missed, especially since H-Ni nuclear reactions have been claimed for almost 2 decades, by people looking for it.
Re: [Vo]:Rossis Catalyst = RF+DC?
Am 16.11.2011 09:50, schrieb Joshua Cude: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net mailto:mvit...@ucsbalum.net wrote: I remember a graduate student in a group in which I was a postdoc, crying (crying!) over a series of IR spectra that resulted from her latest series of experiments, saying I will never graduate, this system just does not work, everything just turns to crap. I looked it over and told her to go show them to the prof. He's going to hug you for these. It was not crap at all, the reaction was not stopping where supposed but continuing in an unexpected and new way forming new species until that point never observed. In other words, a discovery (published on the Journal of the American Chemical Society) instead of a third decimal quantification of a known phenomenon (to be published at most in a small journal). But it was going to be tossed out as crap. But it wasn't. The value may have been overlooked by a graduate student, but both you and the professor recognized it. And you seemed to think it was obvious enough to be sure the professor would recognize it. Obviously it's true that sometimes real phenomena are missed or dismissed as crap when they are not expected, but H-Ni has not just been looked at by a graduate student. It has been widely and extensively studied by very many people. And fusion, or the claimed heat from nuclear reactions, is not a subtle thing. If something had an energy density a million times higher than could be explained by chemistry, it's not likely to have been missed, especially since H-Ni nuclear reactions have been claimed for almost 2 decades, by people looking for it. So far I have read, 10e26 atoms must fuse persecond for a kilowatt or 10e23 atoms persecond for a watt. On the other side, high ignition energy is required to get fusion. It is therefore more probable to discover unexpected radiation or transmutation products than excess energy in experiments. Radiation measurement and chemical analysis are very sensitive methods and if nothing reproducible was discovered by accident during worldwide chemical and physical research of metalhydrides is a little bit strange. However in the Marconi Kohärer, there exist sparcs and melting metal, possibly vaporized metal and high temperature gradients in microscopic regions with a high total inner surface and at 1500° remarkable amounts of hydrogen are atomized (if Langmuire was right about this) and this is something that probably nobody has tried in a pressurized hydrogen athmosphere before, because such experiments are not necessary for metalhydride research. Possibly this should be tried, because this was not done before.
[Vo]:Rossi Energy Catalyzer and National Instruments.
National Instruments makes high end engineering and process control and research instrumentation and software. Their products are very expensive and are used in research and in industrial production environments, but commonly not in end-products. National Instruments makes the instruments for scientific and industrial processes for example for fusion experiments, but they do not make research or development in these fields. I an end product normally National Instruments products are not used, because these are to versatile and to expensive. National Instruments is not a company that makes cheap mass production, they are focused on high end products that are top quality and high price and highest quality standards. If a product goes in series then normally National Instruments products are not contained. NI might develop the algorithms and the custom programmed chips, but they dont make the products. Rossi mailed in a communication with Allan D. Sterling, he wants the NI logo on any e-cat product. Why? Possibly he is more interested in the famous logo than in the application? This logo does not come without extraordinary costs and is only given by special permission and can be refused without reason by NI. NI allows the logo only on products when thy get a good PR effect from its usage. For example on NASA equipment. They will never tolerate unauthorized use. To prevent abuse they are legally obligated to defend their trademark rights, if they do not then the trademark rights are lost. NI doesnt make mass end-user products, so far I know. They make high prized custom specific products for high end customized requirements in small numbers but not mass production for the market. NI's products are for research, industrial and medical, spacecraft and military applications, not for commercial and consumer applications. NI does not target low price markets. Thats their policy so far I know them. How to explain this? Do SterlingRossi even know what NI makes and what they not make and what it costs? Why are these rumours spread by Allan Sterling, Rossi and Jed Rothwell? This makes them even more unbelievable, this are abstruse and improbable claims. If I am in error, prove me false. Name to me serial mass products that wear the NI logo and/or contain NI equipment. best regards, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Rossis Catalyst = RF+DC?
yes, we recognized it upon seeing the graphs. But: i) I was not mentoring that student, so I did not have a reason to look at those graphs ii) the professor would have gotten only a weekly report saying: reaction attempted on xxx failed that's how the world works, folks. As far as the simplicity of Ni-H or similar: anything is obvious when it becomes obvious. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: I remember a graduate student in a group in which I was a postdoc, crying (crying!) over a series of IR spectra that resulted from her latest series of experiments, saying I will never graduate, this system just does not work, everything just turns to crap. I looked it over and told her to go show them to the prof. He's going to hug you for these. It was not crap at all, the reaction was not stopping where supposed but continuing in an unexpected and new way forming new species until that point never observed. In other words, a discovery (published on the Journal of the American Chemical Society) instead of a third decimal quantification of a known phenomenon (to be published at most in a small journal). But it was going to be tossed out as crap. But it wasn't. The value may have been overlooked by a graduate student, but both you and the professor recognized it. And you seemed to think it was obvious enough to be sure the professor would recognize it. Obviously it's true that sometimes real phenomena are missed or dismissed as crap when they are not expected, but H-Ni has not just been looked at by a graduate student. It has been widely and extensively studied by very many people. And fusion, or the claimed heat from nuclear reactions, is not a subtle thing. If something had an energy density a million times higher than could be explained by chemistry, it's not likely to have been missed, especially since H-Ni nuclear reactions have been claimed for almost 2 decades, by people looking for it. -- Marcello Vitale via Cavallotti 5, 20093 Cologno Monzese, MI, ITALY phone: +39 338 484 9724 skype: marcello_vitale_UK email: mvit...@ucsbalum.net
Re: [Vo]:Rossi ecat website - confused
It just got worst: http://pesn.com/2011/11/15/9601957_Sterling_Allan_on_the_up_and_down_of_Rossis_approval_of_Leonardo-ECat.com/ The web site is registered to Rossi. Sterling can't just take it over. I did email Rossi that he should insist the web site be take down it if was not there with his approval. Apparently he asked Sterling to do just that but Sterling has apparently refused to follow Rossi's request. Andrea Rossi, if you read this forum, as I believe you do, take that web site down as it is not helping to tell your story. Do not let Sterling or any body else hijack your story. It is your to tell. AG On 11/16/2011 1:33 AM, David Roberson wrote: Peter, Rossi may have given Allan too much poetic freedom. Rossi is a busy man and apparently does not have time to critic the site as well as he would like. Dave -Original Message- From: peter.heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Nov 15, 2011 2:52 am Subject: [Vo]:Rossi ecat website - confused Hi, According to the WHOIS database the domain leonardo-ecat.com is owned by Andrea Rossi. Sterling Allan publishes content there that is not approved by Andrea Rossi. He re-publishes content that was previously removed on request by Rossi. Because Rossi is the legal owner of the domain, I must assume that anything published there, is tolerated by Rossi and welcome to Rossi. There is no other explanation. I also believe, Rossi is legally responsible for anything published there. Im confused. What does this mean? Peter
Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo
James, Here is what I have deduced from the available pictures. 1) The steam exit pipes have an outer diameter (including insulation) of 11±2 cm. 2) The outer diameter of the pipe without insulation is 6±1 cm. (There is a picture of the steam exit pipe without insulation.) 3) Your guess of a 2 m pipe length to the condensers is correct. Also, these measurements are based on a container width of 2.6 m as given in the report - corroborated by a deduced floor tile size of 30 cm. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Energy Catalyzer and National Instruments.
I think the explanation is straightforward. Rossi is always accused of sloppy measurements, like poor calorimetry, so an NI logo would be equivalent to a seal of quality. 2011/11/16 Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de How to explain this?
[Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
According to Krivit: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/12/swedish-public-radio-turns-spotlight-on-lewan-and-ny-teknik/#comments Steven B. Krivit says: November 15, 2011 at 08:57http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/12/swedish-public-radio-turns-spotlight-on-lewan-and-ny-teknik/#comment-2489 1. Rossi has publicly told all his fans that he will not ask for money until he has a product for sale. 2. They believed him and propagated this information widely but it is not true. 3. Rossi took an unknown amount of money from Ampenergo, as reported by Lewan on May 16, 2011. 4. Rossi asked an engineer at NASA on July 22, 2011, for $15 million to “test” his device. NASA did not pay Rossi anything. 4. Rossi asked Defkalion to give him money by Aug. 1, 2011. Defkalion did not pay Rossi anything. Rossi himself is the source. 5. Rossi met with Quantum on Aug. 2-4. Again asked for millions of dollars. Quantum said “show me.” 6. Quantum reps went to Bologna on Sept. 5 and 6. Rossi asked them for money before they even finished their test attempt. They didn’t give him any money because Rossi interfered with their attempt to test the device. (NASA reps were present.) The sources who were there do not wish to be identified. However, NASA knows what happened. A document obtained from NASA by NET via FOIA states “[Rossi] does allow potential investors to kick the tires a bit … albeit strictly on his terms thus far.” There is no evidence that Rossi has sold any product to any customer. All we know is that after the Oct. 28 show, the shipping container with the 50 Fat-Cats was hauled away on a truck. The only evidence that exists suggests that Rossi is playing a game. Don’t forget the redacted “For the Customer” detail on the Oct. 28 technical report that Rossi put on his Web site. After the Oct. 28 show, Rossi helped to propagate the rumor that he sold it to SPAWAR. When that rumor was disproved, Rossi helped to propagate the rumor that he sold it to National Instruments. Now that has been disproved too. Rossi has promised his grand public demonstration for 10 months now. If Rossi didn’t have what he had claimed since Feb. 2010, as I believe is the case, what else could Rossi do for an exit strategy? Blame MIBs or Big Oil for suppressing his device? And would this explain why Rossi kept trying, time after time, 12 times in a row, but never achieved a convincing demo? Perhaps MIBs or Big Oil interfered with every one of the 12 tests! The hard part for everybody who joined in the promotion and cheerleading for Rossi is that they neglected to consider the importance of science, the scientific method and scientific protocol. But New Energy Times did — the moment we went to meet Rossi and see his device. And then we published — months ago.
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
Interesting, after Krivit's first travel report Rossi immediately attacked Krivit and labelled him as a Snake, although his report was not that particularly harsh. I think Rossi was far more insightful considering the true nature of Krivit than what we might have been thought. I think it was not just a random burst from an angry man, but there was more to that, because Krivit has lost rationality from his criticism for a long time ago. Anyway, it will be very interesting history written when all the background connections are exposed and investigated. I would say that poor Steven the Snake... –Jouni 2011/11/16 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com: According to Krivit: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/12/swedish-public-radio-turns-spotlight-on-lewan-and-ny-teknik/#comments Steven B. Krivit says: November 15, 2011 at 08:57 . . .
Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo
This is another one of those give Rossi the benefit of the doubt issues: The only way I can conceive of a temperature equilibrium in a temperature-enhanced LENR system that doesn't have a heating element setting its lower bounds (and heat-transport medium's phase change its upper bounds) is to feedback from temperature to the heat-transport medium's mass flow rate. If there is no such control then I can't conceive of how the temperature is stabilized. On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:18 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: 2011/11/15 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com If the pressure at the output thermocouple of the Oct 28 demo exceeds the critical pressure of steam at the reported temperature, then there is no heat of vaporization represented in the mass flow hence in the imputed power level. As Stephen Lawrence has emphasized, if the fluid is all steam at the output, then the temperature fluctuation corresponds to about a 1% power fluctuation. If it is all water, then it's about 2%. Neither seems very likely given the huge range of power outputs reported over the year. My understanding is that Rossi's primary problem in achieving self-heating was fine tuning the control of the water flow rate so as to stabilize temperature, rather than relying on an internal resistance heater to assist in setting the lower bound of the target range. If that is the case, then we should expect to see fluctuations in mass flow rate rather than fluctuations in temperature -- regardless of phase. I guess that's possible, although you might expect a kind of oscillation in the temperature, like you get with a thermostat. Where does he describe this? Does he use the output temperature in a feedback loop to adjust the flow? I haven't seen any indication of that in any of the earlier ecats, and not enough of the multi-cat was shown to see any evidence for it.
RE: [Vo]:When faced with reality
From Marcello, The Wright brothers were certainly complicit in the lack of attention they received. Fearful of competitors stealing their ideas, and still without a patent, they flew on only one more day after October 5. From then on, they refused to fly anywhere unless they had a firm contract to sell their aircraft. They wrote to the U.S. government, then to Britain, France and Germany with an offer to sell a flying machine, but were rebuffed because they insisted on a signed contract before giving a demonstration. They were unwilling even to show their photographs of the airborne Flyer. The American military, having recently spent $50,000 on the Langley Aerodrome-a product of the nation's foremost scientist-only to see it plunge twice into the Potomac River like a handful of mortar, was particularly unreceptive to the claims of two unknown bicycle makers from Ohio.[66] Thus, doubted or scorned, the Wright brothers continued their work in semi-obscurity, while other aviation pioneers like Brazilian Alberto Santos-Dumont, Henri Farman, Leon Delagrange and American Glenn Curtiss entered the limelight. There do seem to be some similarities. Regrettably, history often repeats itself. We shall see if that is the case... again. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi ecat website - confused
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Andrea Rossi, if you read this forum, as I believe you do, take that web site down as it is not helping to tell your story. He doesn't. Defkalion does, however. T
Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 11-11-15 10:31 AM, James Bowery wrote: The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and Fleischmann had any validity to their claims. This rhetorical maneuver denies the obvious Bayesian law of prior probability distribution: If PF's cold fusion claim was not valid then any subsequent claims of advances on PF's cold fusion claim are likewise invalidated. This is total nonsense. Experimental results must be judged on their own merit, whether or not the reason for doing the experiments in the first place was actually well founded. That would be true if the experimental protocol were available. In Rossi's case, the experimental protocol is NOT available. What we are dealing with in Rossi's case is NOT science, but more in line with doing an intelligence estimate (as in intelligence agency). When doing such an estimate, the distinction between circumstantial evidence is not as important as it is when one is engaged in science, but it is still relevant. My point about PF is that, while it is a mere circumstance of the Rossi phenomenon, it is highly relevant in investing investigative resources. If PF were not valid, then Rossi's failure to provide experimental protocol would enhance the value of other circumstantial evidence and we would be in a world of shit so deep that it would probably not be worth even my relatively cheap time to look into it. The pseudoskeptics are basically saying that all we have to do is look at the circumstantial evidence to know that even cursory investigation of the direct evidence of the Rossi phenomenon (which implies suspending skepticism about Rossi's claims the way one does in a logical proof involving an assumed condition) is ill-advised (to say the least, by Jove!). This would approximate a reasonable opinion ONLY if PF were not valid. If PF are valid, and we have the possibility of invalidating Rossi's claims merely on direct evidence, what is ill-advised is to ignore what direct evidence we have available if there is any plausible expectation that by doing so we can invalidate Rossi's claims.
[Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
What controls the temperature in the E-Cat's self-sustained mode? I had presumed that all the work Rossi did to go from resistivity heated temperature control to self-sustained temperature control was geared around feedback of the temperature to the heat transport mass flow rate. I didn't have direct evidence of this, other than the relatively narrow range of temperatures during self-sustained mode. Keep in mind that Rossi has stated on numerous occasions that his reaction rate is an increasing function of temperature, and that therefore his system can go into a runaway feedback loop thus destroying itself if it is not carefully controlled. If the resistivity power can be varied during the run, and the heat transport mass flow rate is constant, but high enough to quench the reaction in the absence of resistivity heating, the temperature control system is obvious. But if there is no resistivity heating control there has to be control of the heat transport mass flow rate, does there not?
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
Let me repeat that I started this thread to discern what might have been reported from ardent skeptics AFTER it had been determined beyond reasonable doubt that the Wright Brothers [Sorry about that blatant misspelling of Wright with Right in my original post... Hadn't had my cup'o'Java.] had successfully flown an aircraft under their own power. I'm curious as to what their personal views were, how they might have changed or didn't change, when when faced with the reality of the situation. Did they simply shrug their shoulders, change their minds and get on with the rest of their lives, or did they manufacture new rationalizations to explain why they remain(ed) so skeptical. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
Am 16.11.2011 14:28, schrieb OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson: From Marcello, The Wright brothers were certainly complicit in the lack of attention they received. Fearful of competitors stealing their ideas, and still without a patent, they flew on only one more day after October 5. From then on, they refused to fly anywhere unless they had a firm contract to sell their aircraft. They wrote to the U.S. government, then to Britain, France and Germany with an offer to sell a flying machine, but were rebuffed because they insisted on a signed contract before giving a demonstration. They were unwilling even to show their photographs of the airborne Flyer. The American military, having recently spent $50,000 on the Langley Aerodrome-a product of the nation's foremost scientist-only to see it plunge twice into the Potomac River like a handful of mortar, was particularly unreceptive to the claims of two unknown bicycle makers from Ohio.[66] Thus, doubted or scorned, the Wright brothers continued their work in semi-obscurity, while other aviation pioneers like Brazilian Alberto Santos-Dumont, Henri Farman, Leon Delagrange and American Glenn Curtiss entered the limelight. There do seem to be some similarities. Regrettably, history often repeats itself. There are some obvious differences. Rossis secret is securely encapsuled and hidden. Even nonproprietary parts as the vaporizer content and steam and pressure are hidden (without?) reason. It was impossible for the Wright brothers to hide construction details. They had really to fear, some competitor could copy it. We shall see if that is the case... again. In this case it does not repeat. This is a very different case and not comparable. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
skeptical viewpoints re Rossi: John Pasquarette: Rich Murray 2011.11.11 On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:24 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What controls the temperature in the E-Cat's self-sustained mode? I had presumed that all the work Rossi did to go from resistivity heated temperature control to self-sustained temperature control was geared around feedback of the temperature to the heat transport mass flow rate. I didn't have direct evidence of this, other than the relatively narrow range of temperatures during self-sustained mode.. Any mixture of water and steam self-regulates at a temperature set by the current pressure at each place in the system -- just like any boiling pot of water on a stove -- in Santa Fe at 7,000 feet altitude, the pressure is lower, while in a pressure cooker the increased pressure inside the sealed container causes the self-regulated boiling temperature to be be higher... Once the water is all turned into steam, then the steam temperature rises much more for each added unit of heat input, inside a pressurized system -- so in the Rossi device self-sustain mode, the fact that the temperature is so stable for hours proves conclusively that the coolant flow is still a mixture of water, mist, and steam gas... megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water -- cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 2011.11.10 fromRich Murray rmforall@gmail.comreply-tovorte...@eskimo.com tovorte...@eskimo.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net dateMon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:54 AMsubject[Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water -- cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 [ Rich Murray: this nail in the coffin goes right to the point... using Rossi's own data... ] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/H-Ni_Fusion/message/791 [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW fromjoshua.cude joshua.c...@yahoo.com to h-ni_fus...@yahoogroups.com dateMon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:02 AM subject [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW mailing list H-Ni_Fusion.yahoogroups.comhttp://h-ni_fusion.yahoogroups.com/ 4:02 AM (1 hour ago) The presented evidence from the megawatt demo does not support output power above 70 kW in the 1 MW reactor. The calculation used by Rossi and Fioravanti to claim 470 kW assumes that essentially all the water pumped through the system is vaporized. However, there is no evidence presented in the report to support that assumption. Rossi collects liquid water at the exit of the reactor, but there is no evidence presented that liquid cannot be carried past this collector, entrained in the fast flowing steam, and into the heat exchanger. The only measurement reported is the temperature of the fluid as it exits. This is on average about 105 C, which probably corresponds to the boiling point inside the conduit at an elevated pressure due to the formation of some steam. The fact that no independent measurement was reported of pressure or steam quality indicates that Fioravanti is no more competent than Essen and Kallunder were. If one accepts the notion that above 100 C, the steam is dry, then the total power transfer is proportional to: T2-T1 if T2 = 100 T2-T1 + 540 + (T2-100)(.5)if T2 100 By this calculation, at 100 C, the power transfer is about 65 kW, and at 100.1 C it is about 470 kW. The blue line in the attached figure (PowerTransfer.jpg) represents the result of this calculation for Rossi's latest data in arbitrary units. (The plateau would be about 470 kW.) Or even if you want to claim that the steam is only dry when it reaches 105 C a few minutes later, then the power would follow the dashed line. So Rossi and Fioravanti want us to believe that although it takes 2 hours for the power transfer to reach 65 kW (100 C), it takes only a few minutes to go from 65 kW to 470 kW. The power transfer to the water is proportional to the temperature difference between the water and the heating elements. So this amounts to a claim that the temperature of the heating elements changes essentially discontinuously by a huge amount, and exactly when the water begins to boil. How does it know? And how does it know to stop increasing essentially as soon as all the water is vaporized? If the power increased by another 10%, the steam temperature would increase to more than 200 C. Yet it settles in nicely to a fairly constant temperature just above 100 C, just as if regulated by a mixture of phases at the boiling point, which fluctuates a little because of irregular internal pressure. Such a discontinuous change in the temperature is simply not plausible. A few minutes after it reaches 100 C, the power transfer must still be quite close to the 65 kW, even as the
Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:59 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The pseudoskeptics are basically saying that all we have to do is look at the circumstantial evidence to know that even cursory investigation of the direct evidence of the Rossi phenomenon (which implies suspending skepticism about Rossi's claims the way one does in a logical proof involving an assumed condition) is ill-advised (to say the least, by Jove!). This would approximate a reasonable opinion ONLY if PF were not valid. If PF are valid, and we have the possibility of invalidating Rossi's claims merely on direct evidence, what is ill-advised is to ignore what direct evidence we have available if there is any plausible expectation that by doing so we can invalidate Rossi's claims. Whew. My sympathies for your clients, if that's an example of your communication to them. But if I get the gist of it, I agree that if PF is accepted, then Rossi should be considered more seriously. But, Rossi would know that PF is accepted by a lot of people (many who are desperate to spread the word, as if it is religious), and that the unwashed are rather susceptible to its claims. That would make cold fusion a rather fertile area for attracting investment for extraordinary claims, even if one's demos do no more than hint at them. So, whether or not one accepts PF, without good evidence, skepticism of Rossi is well-advised, especially in view of his history.
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
This doesn't apply to the reaction chamber itself if we presume Rossi's temperature-enhanced reaction rate is in play there. Regardless of how the pressure changes or what the phase mixture is, the temperature will continue to rise and the power level continues to rise. Indeed, the only thing that I can think of that is consistent with a constant temperature at a constant heat transport mass flow rate is a constant power source that operates without regard to its temperature (or in a negative feedback with its temperature). On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: skeptical viewpoints re Rossi: John Pasquarette: Rich Murray 2011.11.11 On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:24 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What controls the temperature in the E-Cat's self-sustained mode? I had presumed that all the work Rossi did to go from resistivity heated temperature control to self-sustained temperature control was geared around feedback of the temperature to the heat transport mass flow rate. I didn't have direct evidence of this, other than the relatively narrow range of temperatures during self-sustained mode.. Any mixture of water and steam self-regulates at a temperature set by the current pressure at each place in the system -- just like any boiling pot of water on a stove -- in Santa Fe at 7,000 feet altitude, the pressure is lower, while in a pressure cooker the increased pressure inside the sealed container causes the self-regulated boiling temperature to be be higher... Once the water is all turned into steam, then the steam temperature rises much more for each added unit of heat input, inside a pressurized system -- so in the Rossi device self-sustain mode, the fact that the temperature is so stable for hours proves conclusively that the coolant flow is still a mixture of water, mist, and steam gas... megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water -- cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 2011.11.10 from Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com reply-to vortex-l@eskimo.com to vortex-L@eskimo.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net date Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:54 AM subject [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water -- cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 [ Rich Murray: this nail in the coffin goes right to the point... using Rossi's own data... ] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/H-Ni_Fusion/message/791 [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW fromjoshua.cude joshua.c...@yahoo.com to h-ni_fus...@yahoogroups.com dateMon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:02 AM subject [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW mailing list H-Ni_Fusion.yahoogroups.comhttp://h-ni_fusion.yahoogroups.com/ 4:02 AM (1 hour ago) The presented evidence from the megawatt demo does not support output power above 70 kW in the 1 MW reactor. The calculation used by Rossi and Fioravanti to claim 470 kW assumes that essentially all the water pumped through the system is vaporized. However, there is no evidence presented in the report to support that assumption. Rossi collects liquid water at the exit of the reactor, but there is no evidence presented that liquid cannot be carried past this collector, entrained in the fast flowing steam, and into the heat exchanger. The only measurement reported is the temperature of the fluid as it exits. This is on average about 105 C, which probably corresponds to the boiling point inside the conduit at an elevated pressure due to the formation of some steam. The fact that no independent measurement was reported of pressure or steam quality indicates that Fioravanti is no more competent than Essen and Kallunder were. If one accepts the notion that above 100 C, the steam is dry, then the total power transfer is proportional to: T2-T1 if T2 = 100 T2-T1 + 540 + (T2-100)(.5)if T2 100 By this calculation, at 100 C, the power transfer is about 65 kW, and at 100.1 C it is about 470 kW. The blue line in the attached figure (PowerTransfer.jpg) represents the result of this calculation for Rossi's latest data in arbitrary units. (The plateau would be about 470 kW.) Or even if you want to claim that the steam is only dry when it reaches 105 C a few minutes later, then the power would follow the dashed line. So Rossi and Fioravanti want us to believe that although it takes 2 hours for the power transfer to reach 65 kW (100 C), it takes only a few minutes to go from 65 kW to 470 kW. The power transfer to the water is proportional to the temperature difference between the water and the heating elements. So this amounts to a claim that the temperature of the heating elements changes
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:05 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: This doesn't apply to the reaction chamber itself if we presume Rossi's temperature-enhanced reaction rate is in play there. That's true, but then we don't know that the temperature there is well-regulated. There is no evidence the temperature in the reactor is even measured, but if it is, it is not reported. That would of course be very useful information, because it would have a very direct relationship to the power transferred to the water: if the claims of complete vaporization within minutes of the onset of boiling were true, we should see a very rapid increase in the core temperature just when boiling starts.
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
Erratum: The parenthetic comment (or in a negative feedback with its temperature) should read (or in a negative feedback with its temperature about a constant temperature). An example of the latter is the purported stability of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:05 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: This doesn't apply to the reaction chamber itself if we presume Rossi's temperature-enhanced reaction rate is in play there. Regardless of how the pressure changes or what the phase mixture is, the temperature will continue to rise and the power level continues to rise. Indeed, the only thing that I can think of that is consistent with a constant temperature at a constant heat transport mass flow rate is a constant power source that operates without regard to its temperature (or in a negative feedback with its temperature). On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: skeptical viewpoints re Rossi: John Pasquarette: Rich Murray 2011.11.11 On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:24 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What controls the temperature in the E-Cat's self-sustained mode? I had presumed that all the work Rossi did to go from resistivity heated temperature control to self-sustained temperature control was geared around feedback of the temperature to the heat transport mass flow rate. I didn't have direct evidence of this, other than the relatively narrow range of temperatures during self-sustained mode.. Any mixture of water and steam self-regulates at a temperature set by the current pressure at each place in the system -- just like any boiling pot of water on a stove -- in Santa Fe at 7,000 feet altitude, the pressure is lower, while in a pressure cooker the increased pressure inside the sealed container causes the self-regulated boiling temperature to be be higher... Once the water is all turned into steam, then the steam temperature rises much more for each added unit of heat input, inside a pressurized system -- so in the Rossi device self-sustain mode, the fact that the temperature is so stable for hours proves conclusively that the coolant flow is still a mixture of water, mist, and steam gas... megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water -- cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 2011.11.10 from Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com reply-to vortex-l@eskimo.com to vortex-L@eskimo.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net date Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:54 AM subject [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water -- cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 [ Rich Murray: this nail in the coffin goes right to the point... using Rossi's own data... ] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/H-Ni_Fusion/message/791 [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW fromjoshua.cude joshua.c...@yahoo.com to h-ni_fus...@yahoogroups.com dateMon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:02 AM subject [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW mailing list H-Ni_Fusion.yahoogroups.comhttp://h-ni_fusion.yahoogroups.com/ 4:02 AM (1 hour ago) The presented evidence from the megawatt demo does not support output power above 70 kW in the 1 MW reactor. The calculation used by Rossi and Fioravanti to claim 470 kW assumes that essentially all the water pumped through the system is vaporized. However, there is no evidence presented in the report to support that assumption. Rossi collects liquid water at the exit of the reactor, but there is no evidence presented that liquid cannot be carried past this collector, entrained in the fast flowing steam, and into the heat exchanger. The only measurement reported is the temperature of the fluid as it exits. This is on average about 105 C, which probably corresponds to the boiling point inside the conduit at an elevated pressure due to the formation of some steam. The fact that no independent measurement was reported of pressure or steam quality indicates that Fioravanti is no more competent than Essen and Kallunder were. If one accepts the notion that above 100 C, the steam is dry, then the total power transfer is proportional to: T2-T1 if T2 = 100 T2-T1 + 540 + (T2-100)(.5)if T2 100 By this calculation, at 100 C, the power transfer is about 65 kW, and at 100.1 C it is about 470 kW. The blue line in the attached figure (PowerTransfer.jpg) represents the result of this calculation for Rossi's latest data in arbitrary units. (The plateau would be about 470 kW.) Or even if you want to claim that the steam is only dry when it reaches 105 C a few minutes later, then the power would follow the dashed line. So Rossi and Fioravanti want us to
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
Also in the same, rather short, wikipedia article, one can read of the furious patent dispute (on the mechanism to steer the planes, not on lift, by the way), of the disrepute that befell the brothers because of their perceived greed, and of the refusal (for 40 years! ) of the Smithsonian to recognize their precedence because another contender to the claim of first to fly had been a director there. As it is to be expected, if you live in the same world as I do, even after their discovery was accepted as irrefutable fact (I am sure for some that only happened when they themselves flew), their role was not. Draw your own conclusions. To the hard-core skeptics, two questions: - did man actually set foot on the moon? Compare and contrast level of proof. - how is Rossi trying to make money out of his wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian scam? I already wrote a detailed post on that and got no reaction. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:27 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Let me repeat that I started this thread to discern what might have been reported from ardent skeptics AFTER it had been determined beyond reasonable doubt that the Wright Brothers had successfully flown an aircraft under their own power. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Marcello Vitale via Cavallotti 5, 20093 Cologno Monzese, MI, ITALY phone: +39 338 484 9724 skype: marcello_vitale_UK email: mvit...@ucsbalum.net
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
For what it's worth I think you are totally right in this Rich. I don't trust Rossi with regard to latest test all being steam - the water trap he used is not at all reliable, wand real power output is probably much lower thant the claimed 470kW (though above 70kW that would be all water). That said I still think he was producing a lot of excess heat in this and other tests, just not nearly as much as he claims. For me he qualtity of the data from the last two Fat-Cat demos is so poor that they do not deserve discussion beyond the acknowledgement that they seem to have produced substantial excess heat. On 16 November 2011 14:43, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: skeptical viewpoints re Rossi: John Pasquarette: Rich Murray 2011.11.11 On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:24 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What controls the temperature in the E-Cat's self-sustained mode? I had presumed that all the work Rossi did to go from resistivity heated temperature control to self-sustained temperature control was geared around feedback of the temperature to the heat transport mass flow rate. I didn't have direct evidence of this, other than the relatively narrow range of temperatures during self-sustained mode.. Any mixture of water and steam self-regulates at a temperature set by the current pressure at each place in the system -- just like any boiling pot of water on a stove -- in Santa Fe at 7,000 feet altitude, the pressure is lower, while in a pressure cooker the increased pressure inside the sealed container causes the self-regulated boiling temperature to be be higher... Once the water is all turned into steam, then the steam temperature rises much more for each added unit of heat input, inside a pressurized system -- so in the Rossi device self-sustain mode, the fact that the temperature is so stable for hours proves conclusively that the coolant flow is still a mixture of water, mist, and steam gas... megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water -- cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 2011.11.10 from Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com reply-to vortex-l@eskimo.com to vortex-L@eskimo.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net date Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:54 AM subject [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water -- cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 [ Rich Murray: this nail in the coffin goes right to the point... using Rossi's own data... ] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/H-Ni_Fusion/message/791 [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW fromjoshua.cude joshua.c...@yahoo.com to h-ni_fus...@yahoogroups.com dateMon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:02 AM subject [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW mailing list H-Ni_Fusion.yahoogroups.comhttp://h-ni_fusion.yahoogroups.com/ 4:02 AM (1 hour ago) The presented evidence from the megawatt demo does not support output power above 70 kW in the 1 MW reactor. The calculation used by Rossi and Fioravanti to claim 470 kW assumes that essentially all the water pumped through the system is vaporized. However, there is no evidence presented in the report to support that assumption. Rossi collects liquid water at the exit of the reactor, but there is no evidence presented that liquid cannot be carried past this collector, entrained in the fast flowing steam, and into the heat exchanger. The only measurement reported is the temperature of the fluid as it exits. This is on average about 105 C, which probably corresponds to the boiling point inside the conduit at an elevated pressure due to the formation of some steam. The fact that no independent measurement was reported of pressure or steam quality indicates that Fioravanti is no more competent than Essen and Kallunder were. If one accepts the notion that above 100 C, the steam is dry, then the total power transfer is proportional to: T2-T1 if T2 = 100 T2-T1 + 540 + (T2-100)(.5)if T2 100 By this calculation, at 100 C, the power transfer is about 65 kW, and at 100.1 C it is about 470 kW. The blue line in the attached figure (PowerTransfer.jpg) represents the result of this calculation for Rossi's latest data in arbitrary units. (The plateau would be about 470 kW.) Or even if you want to claim that the steam is only dry when it reaches 105 C a few minutes later, then the power would follow the dashed line. So Rossi and Fioravanti want us to believe that although it takes 2 hours for the power transfer to reach 65 kW (100 C), it takes only a few minutes to go from 65 kW to 470 kW. The power transfer to the water is proportional to the temperature difference between the water and the heating elements. So this
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
The temperature control system doesn't necessarily have to sense right at the reactor. It can take any output measurement that has a reasonably short time constant. The problem is that if there is no such control system, then the reactor has to destroy itself (presuming the truth of Rossi's repeated assertions that reaction rate increases with temperature). On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:05 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: This doesn't apply to the reaction chamber itself if we presume Rossi's temperature-enhanced reaction rate is in play there. That's true, but then we don't know that the temperature there is well-regulated. There is no evidence the temperature in the reactor is even measured, but if it is, it is not reported. That would of course be very useful information, because it would have a very direct relationship to the power transferred to the water: if the claims of complete vaporization within minutes of the onset of boiling were true, we should see a very rapid increase in the core temperature just when boiling starts.
Re: [Vo]:Report On A Conversation With George Miley
Hi Jed, anything more in from George? On 9 November 2011 14:29, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: David ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.com wrote: Report On A Conversation With George Miley http://e-catsite.com/2011/11/08/report-on-a-conversation-with-george-miley/ That looks impressive with the slides added. Oops. There is a typo: Although deloading is chemically endothermic, in some cases they have seen the heat increased during the loading. That is supposed to be: . . . .during deloading. The point is, you expect it cool down during deloading, but it sometimes heats up instead. I think Rossi's cell did this on Oct. 6. By the way, I sent this text to George Miley and he did not point out any errors. So I guess it is okay. He said he would get back to me later in the week with more details. I will revise it if he does. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
If the water coolant flow is slow enough, then the electric heater power input will be enough to flash all the water into steam within the actual reaction chamber space, depending on its internal size and geometric complexity -- I have proposed that the ceramic resistor heater may quickly become corroded and cracked, creating electrical shorts, hot spots, heat surges, perhaps unmonitored excess electrical input from the constant voltage power supply, and accelerating damage, leading to explosions -- Rossi has mentioned dozens of explosions in recent years -- we have to know how much H gas and dissolved H reaches the surface of the ceramic resistor and any other hot spots, and whether electrical shorts lead to water electrolysis, releasing H and O into the situation, and do post mortum studies of exploded reactors. Also, vaporizing municipal water will quickly deposit boiler scale in the hottest places, creating more havoc... On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:05 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: This doesn't apply to the reaction chamber itself if we presume Rossi's temperature-enhanced reaction rate is in play there. Regardless of how the pressure changes or what the phase mixture is, the temperature will continue to rise and the power level continues to rise. Indeed, the only thing that I can think of that is consistent with a constant temperature at a constant heat transport mass flow rate is a constant power source that operates without regard to its temperature (or in a negative feedback with its temperature). On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: skeptical viewpoints re Rossi: John Pasquarette: Rich Murray 2011.11.11 On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:24 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What controls the temperature in the E-Cat's self-sustained mode? I had presumed that all the work Rossi did to go from resistivity heated temperature control to self-sustained temperature control was geared around feedback of the temperature to the heat transport mass flow rate. I didn't have direct evidence of this, other than the relatively narrow range of temperatures during self-sustained mode.. Any mixture of water and steam self-regulates at a temperature set by the current pressure at each place in the system -- just like any boiling pot of water on a stove -- in Santa Fe at 7,000 feet altitude, the pressure is lower, while in a pressure cooker the increased pressure inside the sealed container causes the self-regulated boiling temperature to be be higher... Once the water is all turned into steam, then the steam temperature rises much more for each added unit of heat input, inside a pressurized system -- so in the Rossi device self-sustain mode, the fact that the temperature is so stable for hours proves conclusively that the coolant flow is still a mixture of water, mist, and steam gas... megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water -- cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 2011.11.10 from Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com reply-to vortex-l@eskimo.com to vortex-L@eskimo.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net date Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:54 AM subject [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water -- cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 [ Rich Murray: this nail in the coffin goes right to the point... using Rossi's own data... ] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/H-Ni_Fusion/message/791 [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW fromjoshua.cude joshua.c...@yahoo.com to h-ni_fus...@yahoogroups.com dateMon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:02 AM subject [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW mailing list H-Ni_Fusion.yahoogroups.comhttp://h-ni_fusion.yahoogroups.com/ 4:02 AM (1 hour ago) The presented evidence from the megawatt demo does not support output power above 70 kW in the 1 MW reactor. The calculation used by Rossi and Fioravanti to claim 470 kW assumes that essentially all the water pumped through the system is vaporized. However, there is no evidence presented in the report to support that assumption. Rossi collects liquid water at the exit of the reactor, but there is no evidence presented that liquid cannot be carried past this collector, entrained in the fast flowing steam, and into the heat exchanger. The only measurement reported is the temperature of the fluid as it exits. This is on average about 105 C, which probably corresponds to the boiling point inside the conduit at an elevated pressure due to the formation of some steam. The fact that no independent measurement was reported of pressure or steam quality indicates that Fioravanti is no more competent than Essen and Kallunder were. If one accepts the notion that above 100 C, the
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
Mary Yugo pointed out that other energy scams make money by accepting secret investments from carefully selected credulous people, who have to sign iron clad nondisclosure agreements... this can go on for years... On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: Also in the same, rather short, wikipedia article, one can read of the furious patent dispute (on the mechanism to steer the planes, not on lift, by the way), of the disrepute that befell the brothers because of their perceived greed, and of the refusal (for 40 years! ) of the Smithsonian to recognize their precedence because another contender to the claim of first to fly had been a director there. As it is to be expected, if you live in the same world as I do, even after their discovery was accepted as irrefutable fact (I am sure for some that only happened when they themselves flew), their role was not. Draw your own conclusions. To the hard-core skeptics, two questions: - did man actually set foot on the moon? Compare and contrast level of proof. - how is Rossi trying to make money out of his wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian scam? I already wrote a detailed post on that and got no reaction. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:27 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Let me repeat that I started this thread to discern what might have been reported from ardent skeptics AFTER it had been determined beyond reasonable doubt that the Wright Brothers had successfully flown an aircraft under their own power. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Marcello Vitale via Cavallotti 5, 20093 Cologno Monzese, MI, ITALY phone: +39 338 484 9724 skype: marcello_vitale_UK email: mvit...@ucsbalum.net
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:17 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The temperature control system doesn't necessarily have to sense right at the reactor. It can take any output measurement that has a reasonably short time constant. Right, but then we're back to the question of stabilization of the temperature by a mixture of phases. If that's the case at the output, you can't use it to regulate the temperature of the core. So there is a huge power range from 70 kW to 470 kW in the multi-cat, over which the core temperature could not be regulated by the temperature of the fluid output.
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: To the hard-core skeptics, two questions: - did man actually set foot on the moon? Compare and contrast level of proof. I agree, the moon-landing requires some trust, because there is no way for us to witness it directly. But the sheer number of complicit people -- probably 10s of thousands -- required to fake it make that scenario infinitely more difficult to believe than a moon landing, which after all is based on perfectly well-understood physics. There is no unknown reaction claimed here. In Rossi's case, it is completely feasible to demonstrate the effect without any need for trust, and so here the fact that he doesn't makes it likely that he can't. Furthermore, the number of complicit people necessary is much, much smaller. In fact, it could be all delusion or incompetence (definitely not possible in the moon-landing). - how is Rossi trying to make money out of his wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian scam? I already wrote a detailed post on that and got no reaction. Maybe you missed the cross-post of Krivit's comment on his latest post, where he spells it out pretty well. Briefly, entirely plausible, confidential, and substantial, investments. Or, for another clue, look at BLP and how their wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian story, in which no product has ever been marketed, and in which promises have been repeatedly unfulfilled, has nevertheless earned them about $60M in investment.
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
I agree, the moon-landing requires some trust, because there is no way for us to witness it directly. Maybe. But if you've seen a Saturn V launch, as have hundreds of thousands if not millions, you have to be impressed that some considerable chunk of mass is traveling very fast moonward. And then there's the bill for NASA and its activities measuring in the hundreds of billions of dollars. That'd be a pretty expensive movie.
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
Ooops... my intuition screwed up on this one: Since the effective specific heat does not remain constant with temperature -- there is a discontinuous rise at the boiling point -- there is a dramatic rise in the effective heat transport with temperature at the boiling point (whatever it is for the pressure in the reaction vessel). That's all that's required for temperature control. Rossi's effort required to achieve self-sustained mode then would have been to ensure that the flow rate around the reactor vessel was in the range where it is low enough not to quench the reaction in the 1deg/gm/calorie regime, but high enough that in the regime where its some huge number the reactor reaches an equilibrium with the heat transport. I plead lack of sleep.
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
By the way, this means that if the water in the reactor vessel is under enough pressure, the water pressure can be very high. This means, in turn, that if it goes through a pressure drop, it can be completely vaporized -- indeed superheated steam. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:56 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ooops... my intuition screwed up on this one: Since the effective specific heat does not remain constant with temperature -- there is a discontinuous rise at the boiling point -- there is a dramatic rise in the effective heat transport with temperature at the boiling point (whatever it is for the pressure in the reaction vessel). That's all that's required for temperature control. Rossi's effort required to achieve self-sustained mode then would have been to ensure that the flow rate around the reactor vessel was in the range where it is low enough not to quench the reaction in the 1deg/gm/calorie regime, but high enough that in the regime where its some huge number the reactor reaches an equilibrium with the heat transport. I plead lack of sleep.
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
Nice to see a polite discussion that reaches agreements... On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:56 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ooops... my intuition screwed up on this one: Since the effective specific heat does not remain constant with temperature -- there is a discontinuous rise at the boiling point -- there is a dramatic rise in the effective heat transport with temperature at the boiling point (whatever it is for the pressure in the reaction vessel). That's all that's required for temperature control. Rossi's effort required to achieve self-sustained mode then would have been to ensure that the flow rate around the reactor vessel was in the range where it is low enough not to quench the reaction in the 1deg/gm/calorie regime, but high enough that in the regime where its some huge number the reactor reaches an equilibrium with the heat transport. I plead lack of sleep.
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
There is the only problem with the investment story that it does not appear to be true. The only source of money Krivit cites is Ampenergo, that is Rossi himself. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: To the hard-core skeptics, two questions: - did man actually set foot on the moon? Compare and contrast level of proof. I agree, the moon-landing requires some trust, because there is no way for us to witness it directly. But the sheer number of complicit people -- probably 10s of thousands -- required to fake it make that scenario infinitely more difficult to believe than a moon landing, which after all is based on perfectly well-understood physics. There is no unknown reaction claimed here. In Rossi's case, it is completely feasible to demonstrate the effect without any need for trust, and so here the fact that he doesn't makes it likely that he can't. Furthermore, the number of complicit people necessary is much, much smaller. In fact, it could be all delusion or incompetence (definitely not possible in the moon-landing). - how is Rossi trying to make money out of his wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian scam? I already wrote a detailed post on that and got no reaction. Maybe you missed the cross-post of Krivit's comment on his latest post, where he spells it out pretty well. Briefly, entirely plausible, confidential, and substantial, investments. Or, for another clue, look at BLP and how their wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian story, in which no product has ever been marketed, and in which promises have been repeatedly unfulfilled, has nevertheless earned them about $60M in investment. -- Marcello Vitale via Cavallotti 5, 20093 Cologno Monzese, MI, ITALY phone: +39 338 484 9724 skype: marcello_vitale_UK email: mvit...@ucsbalum.net
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
I would really like to see what the screen on top of the PLC was displaying. All the answers to our engineering control questions could be on that screen. It sure looks like the box was very full of controls of various types and kinds. AG On 11/17/2011 2:30 AM, Rich Murray wrote: Nice to see a polite discussion that reaches agreements... On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:56 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com mailto:jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ooops... my intuition screwed up on this one: Since the effective specific heat does not remain constant with temperature -- there is a discontinuous rise at the boiling point -- there is a dramatic rise in the effective heat transport with temperature at the boiling point (whatever it is for the pressure in the reaction vessel). That's all that's required for temperature control. Rossi's effort required to achieve self-sustained mode then would have been to ensure that the flow rate around the reactor vessel was in the range where it is low enough not to quench the reaction in the 1deg/gm/calorie regime, but high enough that in the regime where its some huge number the reactor reaches an equilibrium with the heat transport. I plead lack of sleep.
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
Ampenergo is owned by his wife. 2011/11/16 Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net There is the only problem with the investment story that it does not appear to be true. The only source of money Krivit cites is Ampenergo, that is Rossi himself. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: To the hard-core skeptics, two questions: - did man actually set foot on the moon? Compare and contrast level of proof. I agree, the moon-landing requires some trust, because there is no way for us to witness it directly. But the sheer number of complicit people -- probably 10s of thousands -- required to fake it make that scenario infinitely more difficult to believe than a moon landing, which after all is based on perfectly well-understood physics. There is no unknown reaction claimed here. In Rossi's case, it is completely feasible to demonstrate the effect without any need for trust, and so here the fact that he doesn't makes it likely that he can't. Furthermore, the number of complicit people necessary is much, much smaller. In fact, it could be all delusion or incompetence (definitely not possible in the moon-landing). - how is Rossi trying to make money out of his wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian scam? I already wrote a detailed post on that and got no reaction. Maybe you missed the cross-post of Krivit's comment on his latest post, where he spells it out pretty well. Briefly, entirely plausible, confidential, and substantial, investments. Or, for another clue, look at BLP and how their wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian story, in which no product has ever been marketed, and in which promises have been repeatedly unfulfilled, has nevertheless earned them about $60M in investment. -- Marcello Vitale via Cavallotti 5, 20093 Cologno Monzese, MI, ITALY phone: +39 338 484 9724 skype: marcello_vitale_UK email: mvit...@ucsbalum.net
Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards
On 11-11-16 08:59 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-11-15 10:31 AM, James Bowery wrote: The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and Fleischmann had any validity to their claims. This rhetorical maneuver denies the obvious Bayesian law of prior probability distribution: If PF's cold fusion claim was not valid then any subsequent claims of advances on PF's cold fusion claim are likewise invalidated. This is total nonsense. Experimental results must be judged on their own merit, whether or not the reason for doing the experiments in the first place was actually well founded. That would be true if the experimental protocol were available. In Rossi's case, the experimental protocol is NOT available. I guess you missed my point. Let me restate it, more clearly and succinctly. Your blanket statement that any subsequent claims of advances on PF's cold fusion claim are likewise invalidated if PF's result was invalid is false, and that is the case regardless of whether Rossi's work is scientifically impeccable, totally fraudulent, or just a mass hallucination shared by all posters to this list.
Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo
OK, I've now conceived of how the temperature is stabilized without feedback control, and it doesn't require anything like mixed phase flow. All it requires is pressure in the reaction vessel high enough to keep the liquid flow at the boiling point (for that pressure) and transport away all the power within the heat of latent heat provided by the nearly discontinuous rise in effective specific heat of water at the boiling point. The water pump pressure feeding the E-Cat could be very high relative to atmospheric pressure, and the pressure drop at the exit from the E-Cat could be quite substantial prior to the thermocouple, resulting in a dry -- even superheated -- steam. So my originally post problem of estimating the pressure at the output thermocouple still stands as critical in invalidating the Oct 28 demonstration. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:23 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: This is another one of those give Rossi the benefit of the doubt issues: The only way I can conceive of a temperature equilibrium in a temperature-enhanced LENR system that doesn't have a heating element setting its lower bounds (and heat-transport medium's phase change its upper bounds) is to feedback from temperature to the heat-transport medium's mass flow rate. If there is no such control then I can't conceive of how the temperature is stabilized. On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:18 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: 2011/11/15 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com If the pressure at the output thermocouple of the Oct 28 demo exceeds the critical pressure of steam at the reported temperature, then there is no heat of vaporization represented in the mass flow hence in the imputed power level. As Stephen Lawrence has emphasized, if the fluid is all steam at the output, then the temperature fluctuation corresponds to about a 1% power fluctuation. If it is all water, then it's about 2%. Neither seems very likely given the huge range of power outputs reported over the year. My understanding is that Rossi's primary problem in achieving self-heating was fine tuning the control of the water flow rate so as to stabilize temperature, rather than relying on an internal resistance heater to assist in setting the lower bound of the target range. If that is the case, then we should expect to see fluctuations in mass flow rate rather than fluctuations in temperature -- regardless of phase. I guess that's possible, although you might expect a kind of oscillation in the temperature, like you get with a thermostat. Where does he describe this? Does he use the output temperature in a feedback loop to adjust the flow? I haven't seen any indication of that in any of the earlier ecats, and not enough of the multi-cat was shown to see any evidence for it.
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: There is the only problem with the investment story that it does not appear to be true. The only source of money Krivit cites is Ampenergo, that is Rossi himself. That may be the only source that he claims succeeded, and I don't think we know where Ampenergo might have got the money (private investors?), or how much they gave him. But to explain Rossi's motivation, we don't need to show that he got money, only how he intended (or intends) to get it. Not all scams are successful, and this may be one that fails to fulfill Rossi's hopes. He got lucky with Kullander and Essen, but he probably didn't anticipate the level of scrutiny Krivit would put him under. Still, to read the many people on these forums that are ready and willing to give him money, based on the demos done so far, I expect he will be able to convert some of the adoration and hero worship (some even evident on this list) into cash. In any case, it's not implausible.
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Ampenergo is owned by his wife. No: This was confirmed by Andrea Rossi’s wife, Maddalena Pascucci who is a commerce graduate and manages the commercial part of the energy catalyzer. Formally, the agreement was made between Praxen and the Italian company EFA srl, of which she is principal owner. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3194216.ece Ampenergo is owned by: The founders of Ampenergo are Karl Norwood, Richard Noceti, Robert Gentile and Craig Cassarino. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece You really should buy a program. You can't tell the players without a program.. :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:34 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Anyway, it will be very interesting history written when all the background connections are exposed and investigated. I would say that poor Steven the Snake... What do you find wrong with Krivit's summary?
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Energy Catalyzer and National Instruments.
Perhaps discussing the NI logo on Rossi equipment is premature. NI has made a couple of statements and none says Rossi will get an NI logo. IIRC, the whole idea came from Sterling Allan -- the guy who links his web site to stories about cars than use water as the only fuel and about Obama going to Mars.
[Vo]:Is it a Bird? Is it a Plane?
http://www.examiner.com/unexplained-phenomena-in-national/ufo-allegedly-spotted-following-us-military-airplane-video Well, it *is* a plane; but, what is that object following it? It almost looks like it is being towed by the C17 until near the end. T
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
good question, Mary ! Any proof for: All we know is that after the Oct. 28 show, the shipping container with the 50 Fat-Cats was hauled away on a truck. ? On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:34 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Anyway, it will be very interesting history written when all the background connections are exposed and investigated. I would say that poor Steven the Snake... What do you find wrong with Krivit's summary?
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:56 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Since the effective specific heat does not remain constant with temperature -- there is a discontinuous rise at the boiling point -- there is a dramatic rise in the effective heat transport with temperature at the boiling point (whatever it is for the pressure in the reaction vessel). I don't follow. Obviously, there is a discontinuous rise in the power transfer *as a function of fluid temperature*. The same temperature can correspond to any power transfer between 70 kW and 470 kW. But there is not a discontinuous rise in the power transfer *as a function of time*. The power transfer is not discontinuous with the temperature of the core (or more specifically, with the heating element). In fact, since the heat-transfer coefficient to steam is lower than to liquid water, the temperature of the core has to increase faster to increase the power transfer after the onset of boiling. And since the core temperature is not likely to change temperature discontinuously (in time), then the power transfer is not expected to change discontinuously with time. And yet, in all the steam conversion demos, the implicit claim is that as soon as the bp is reached, the output is dry steam. It's just not possible.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Energy Catalyzer and National Instruments.
You will break your keyboard. 2011/11/16 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com the guy who links his web site to stories about cars than use water as the only fuel and about Obama going to Mars.
Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:59 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The pseudoskeptics are basically saying ... You lost me before the incredibly convoluted prose -- at pseudoskeptics. There is every reason to view Rossi's claims skeptically.
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:58 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, this means that if the water in the reactor vessel is under enough pressure, the water pressure can be very high. This means, in turn, that if it goes through a pressure drop, it can be completely vaporized -- indeed superheated steam. It would have to be a very high pressure and temperature to completely vaporize it. Vaporization extracts energy which causes cooling, and when enough vaporizes to cool the remaining liquid to the new boiling point, the vaporization stops. For example, if liquid water at 105C under pressure, were released to atmospheric pressure, only about 1% (by mass) would vaporize. That would still be a noisy and impressive spray, because 1% by mass corresponds to more than 90% by volume. Such a wet mist could easily be mistaken for pure steam by an uncritical audience (and of course, has been).
Re: [Vo]:Is it a Bird? Is it a Plane?
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.examiner.com/unexplained-phenomena-in-national/ufo-allegedly-spotted-following-us-military-airplane-video Well, it *is* a plane; but, what is that object following it? It almost looks like it is being towed by the C17 until near the end. C17's drop stuff all the time out of the cargo bay door. That's how they deliver cargo some of the time.Looks like something hung up and indeed is being towed by the plane.
Re: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode
A true self sustaining mode would require control of the water mass flow rate and possibly active cooling of the cores. His definition of self sustaining is not forever having the same output, but more of a it keeps emitting heat for an extended period of time until it cools too much. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 16, 2011 9:27 am Subject: [Vo]:Temperature Control in E-Cat Self-sustained Mode What controls the temperature in the E-Cat's self-sustained mode? I had presumed that all the work Rossi did to go from resistivity heated temperature control to self-sustained temperature control was geared around feedback of the temperature to the heat transport mass flow rate. I didn't have direct evidence of this, other than the relatively narrow range of temperatures during self-sustained mode. Keep in mind that Rossi has stated on numerous occasions that his reaction rate is an increasing function of temperature, and that therefore his system can go into a runaway feedback loop thus destroying itself if it is not carefully controlled. If the resistivity power can be varied during the run, and the heat transport mass flow rate is constant, but high enough to quench the reaction in the absence of resistivity heating, the temperature control system is obvious. But if there is no resistivity heating control there has to be control of the heat transport mass flow rate, does there not?
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Energy Catalyzer and National Instruments.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: You will break your keyboard. Thank you for your concern.
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
On 11-11-16 10:43 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net mailto:mvit...@ucsbalum.net wrote: To the hard-core skeptics, two questions: - did man actually set foot on the moon? Compare and contrast level of proof. I agree, the moon-landing requires some trust, because there is no way for us to witness it directly. True, but not much. Among other things, we can look at the photographs which were taken. Some of them, particularly the slides which are still on file at NASA and which can be accessed by anyone with a good reason, and which have been scanned and are available online for the rest of us, would have been incredibly hard to fake with technology of that time. Frankly, I find it easier to understand how they could have physically gone to the Moon than to understand how they could have put that perfectly distorted reflection on the visor of the astronaut standing on the Moon's surface using the analog technology that was available to them. Do *that* using physical lenses in a darkroom?? Good luck! The best bit is the image of the Earth reflected in the visor. It's not even visible in the published versions of the picture (like, in Life magazine, for instance) but it's there in the original. And it's in the right place in the reflected sky. Some trick! Carving the backs of the gargoyles on Notre Dame is nothing compared to *that* level of attention to detail! The videos are pretty interesting, also, even though the online versions are rather low resolution. Note, for instance, how the dust falls all wrong when they race around on the little scooter. Faking that would have been a challenge, to say the least, and it's not clear anyone would have noticed if they hadn't bothered with that little detail. Again, if it's a fake, that's like carving the backs of the gargoyles, raised to the tenth power. Or, for another clue, look at BLP and how their wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian story, in which no product has ever been marketed, and in which promises have been repeatedly unfulfilled, has nevertheless earned them about $60M in investment. Now, I'd agree that believing in BLP requires a certain level of trust
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
In any case, it doesn't make sense to call Ampenergo as one of the (supposedly) scammed parts. The deal with AP was to sell the e-cat in the name of AR's company, so they should actually be the front gate of a scam. 2011/11/16 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Ampenergo is owned by his wife. No: This was confirmed by Andrea Rossi’s wife, Maddalena Pascucci who is a commerce graduate and manages the commercial part of the energy catalyzer. Formally, the agreement was made between Praxen and the Italian company EFA srl, of which she is principal owner. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3194216.ece Ampenergo is owned by: The founders of Ampenergo are Karl Norwood, Richard Noceti, Robert Gentile and Craig Cassarino. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece You really should buy a program. You can't tell the players without a program.. :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:12 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: OK, I've now conceived of how the temperature is stabilized without feedback control, and it doesn't require anything like mixed phase flow. All it requires is pressure in the reaction vessel high enough to keep the liquid flow at the boiling point (for that pressure) and transport away all the power within the heat of latent heat provided by the nearly discontinuous rise in effective specific heat of water at the boiling point. Again, I don't follow. That sounds like a mixture of phases. The specific heat of water decreases at the boiling point. The specific heat of steam is about half that of liquid water, but it's more the heat transfer coefficient that is relevant there. If you're talking about the specific heat of liquid, it does not change discontinuously anywhere. The water pump pressure feeding the E-Cat could be very high relative to atmospheric pressure, and the pressure drop at the exit from the E-Cat could be quite substantial prior to the thermocouple, resulting in a dry -- even superheated -- steam. No, it would not convert from liquid to dry steam unless the temperature of the liquid water was over 600C, and that would require implausible pressures. So my originally post problem of estimating the pressure at the output thermocouple still stands as critical in invalidating the Oct 28 demonstration. You'll have to explain it again for those of us with shit for brains, because it doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how you've countered the very simple claim that the well regulated temperature corresponds to a 1% regulation in power, unless there is a mixture of phases.
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Anyway, it will be very interesting history written when all the background connections are exposed and investigated. I would say that poor Steven the Snake... If Rossi prevails, Krivit will certainly look bad, and so will the entire scientific establishment. On the other hand, in the more likely scenario that Rossi fizzles (probably over a long period), Krivit will come up roses. He will become the go-to guy for all claims of cold fusion, as one of the few apparently rational cold fusion advocates. He will assume the throne as king of cold fusion. And then he will become insufferable with his promotion of Widom Larsen. That will be a worse scenario than the first. Unfortunately it's more likely.
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
Steven the Snake wrote: 1. Rossi has publicly told all his fans that he will not ask for money until he has a product for sale. 2. They believed him and propagated this information widely but it is not true. This is false. Rossi has refused to take money from investor and private persons. Ampenergo was wholly different story. And we do not have any details about that, because Ampenergo's relationship with Rossi is unclear. Because of this blunder from the Snake, there is not much relevance for the rest, of his fighting against the windmills. 4. Rossi asked an engineer at NASA on July 22, 2011, for $15 million to “test” his device. NASA did not pay Rossi anything. Should have paid. And also it was to be deposed in escrow account. Not for Rossi. Money goes only for Rossi, is demonstration leads into contract. 4. Rossi asked Defkalion to give him money by Aug. 1, 2011. Defkalion did not pay Rossi anything. Rossi himself is the source. Rossi has always willing to do contracts with partners. Doing contracts for production has nothing to do with collecting money from private entities and investors. There is no evidence that Rossi has sold any product to any customer. All we know is that after the Oct. 28 show, the shipping container with the 50 Fat-Cats was hauled away on a truck. The only evidence that exists suggests that Rossi is playing a game. Don’t forget the redacted “For the Customer” detail on the Oct. 28 technical report that Rossi put on his Web site. Here Krivit got the premise right, but failed with the conclusion. That is his conclusion does not follow from the premise. After the Oct. 28 show, Rossi helped to propagate the rumor that he sold it to SPAWAR. When that rumor was disproved, Rossi helped to propagate the rumor that he sold it to National Instruments. Now that has been disproved too. This is nuts assertions and only shows how little ability Krivit has for objective and critical thinking. Rossi has promised his grand public demonstration for 10 months now. If Rossi didn’t have what he had claimed since Feb. 2010, as I believe is the case, what else could Rossi do for an exit strategy? Blame MIBs or Big Oil for suppressing his device? And would this explain why Rossi kept trying, time after time, 12 times in a row, but never achieved a convincing demo? Perhaps MIBs or Big Oil interfered with every one of the 12 tests! Krivit has lost with counting. There has been tests in Dec, Jan, March, 2×April, July, 3×Sep, 2×Oct. Then there was that 18h test by Levi, Bianchini and Passerini, but it should not be counted as a test, because it showed a success. Therefore it must be just fabricated and in reality it never happened. The hard part for everybody who joined in the promotion and cheerleading for Rossi is that they neglected to consider the importance of science, the scientific method and scientific protocol. Krivit does not even understand basics about scientific method, because he is requiring control experiments for experiments where there is only one variable to be measured. Controls are only for multiple variable studies. But New Energy Times did — the moment we went to meet Rossi and see his device. And then we published — months ago. June test had zero relevance, because there was no measurements done. It was just presentation of old model of E-Cat. Therefore, what NET did with the 200 page report, was just wasting of time. It did not provide not even single relevant proof against Rossi, but it was just filled with speculations and misunderstandings what steam quality means. Instead of facts, it contained mostly silly speculations and accusations, without any rational basis. What is most annoying with Krivit, that he has fixed his position without objective evidence. If evidence to support the claim is not adequate, then it does not follow that the claim is false. But as I mentioned that Krivit is concluding, from the inconclusive evidence, that Rossi is a fraudster and criminal. –Jouni
[Vo]:LENR library query
Jed, Do you have this italian paper in the LENR library? http://www.22passi.it/downloads/2-CHIMICA%20E...MISTERI.pdf Harry
Re: [Vo]:Is it a Bird? Is it a Plane?
Yes, it looks like some kind of probe. It also looks like the cargo door is open. 2011/11/16 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.examiner.com/unexplained-phenomena-in-national/ufo-allegedly-spotted-following-us-military-airplane-video Well, it *is* a plane; but, what is that object following it? It almost looks like it is being towed by the C17 until near the end. C17's drop stuff all the time out of the cargo bay door. That's how they deliver cargo some of the time.Looks like something hung up and indeed is being towed by the plane.
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: ** Now, I'd agree that believing in BLP requires a certain level of trust This string isn't about BLP but BLP has a lot of the hallmarks of a scam. It could also be a delusion and I suppose there is a still a vanishingly tiny chance it could be real. There's more detail, writing papers, math, and involvement by others including Rowan University in BLP than there is in Rossi's story. Mills could fix all his problems by closing the loop. Show that the end result of the reaction can be returned to the input to power the reaction. Or in Mills' case, that you can make the magic powder tested by Rowan cheaply. Closing the loop is what free energy (or almost free energy) advocates have, so far, *always* failed to do -- including Rossi.
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
If Rossi prevails, Krivit will certainly look bad, and so will the entire scientific establishment. I disagree. With the present evidence, there is every reason to be skeptical of Rossi. And Krivit is responding properly to the facts presented to him. If Rossi's claims are real, he's done the worst possible job of presenting them credibly. And it's not difficult to do it credibly. On the other hand, in the more likely scenario that Rossi fizzles (probably over a long period), Krivit will come up roses. He will become the go-to guy for all claims of cold fusion, as one of the few apparently rational cold fusion advocates. He will assume the throne as king of cold fusion. And then he will become insufferable with his promotion of Widom Larsen. That will be a worse scenario than the first. Unfortunately it's more likely. The same criteria apply to any theory Krivit favors as they do to Rossi's. If Krivit doesn't have the goods, there will be skeptical comments about his claims as well. This should be about evidence and not beliefs.
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Steven the Snake wrote: 1. Rossi has publicly told all his fans that he will not ask for money until he has a product for sale. 2. They believed him and propagated this information widely but it is not true. This is false. Rossi has refused to take money from investor and private persons. Ampenergo was wholly different story. And we do not have any details about that, because Ampenergo's relationship with Rossi is unclear. Because of this blunder from the Snake, there is not much relevance for the rest, of his fighting against the windmills. This is pretty clear -- Rossi got a substantial sum from Ampenergo --or so they said. I tire of reposting it all the time because some people can't remember it: *How much do you pay for the agreement?* Cassarino: Unfortunately that’s confidential. *Have you paid anything to Rossi yet?* Cassarino: Yes we have. *How much?* Cassarino: Let’s put it like this, it was an important piece of the equation. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi prevails, Krivit will certainly look bad, and so will the entire scientific establishment. I disagree. With the present evidence, there is every reason to be skeptical of Rossi. That's true. The skepticism of Rossi is justified. But if Rossi were to prevail, then the scientific establishment will have clearly failed to exploit a dramatically important effect identified 20 years ago -- an effect that is pretty straightforward to set up, and that should be trivial to demonstrate unequivocally. (Don't get me wrong; I don't expect this to happen. But if cold fusion is real, then the advocates are right in that science will have something to answer for.) The same criteria apply to any theory Krivit favors as they do to Rossi's. If Krivit doesn't have the goods, there will be skeptical comments about his claims as well. This should be about evidence and not beliefs. Sure, I completely agree. But beliefs are a big part of what keeps this controversy alive. And with a successful Rossi debunking under his belt, Krivit will have some credibility to throw around. I actually think that Krivit is pretty scrupulous, and believes in what he is doing. And I think if he were to apply the same critical thinking to the entire field that he has to Rossi, he might become a skeptic yet.
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: 4. Rossi asked an engineer at NASA on July 22, 2011, for $15 million to “test” his device. NASA did not pay Rossi anything. Should have paid. And also it was to be deposed in escrow account. Not for Rossi. Money goes only for Rossi, is demonstration leads into contract. How do you know the terms of this supposed offer? 4. Rossi asked Defkalion to give him money by Aug. 1, 2011. Defkalion did not pay Rossi anything. Rossi himself is the source. Rossi has always willing to do contracts with partners. Doing contracts for production has nothing to do with collecting money from private entities and investors. If Rossi produced, why would Defkalion not pay him? It's supposed to be the most valuable invention of the century! Then there was that 18h test by Levi, Bianchini and Passerini, but it should not be counted as a test, because it showed a success. Therefore it must be just fabricated and in reality it never happened. Perhaps you missed the fascinating interview that Krivit did with Rossi to get at the bottom of that test. Here is a link to the Youtube pieces from E-cat World: http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/08/guiseppe-levi-conducts-video-interview-with-steven-krivit-about-his-testing-of-the-e-cat/ What you will hear is that Levi refuses to provide actual data and did not calibrate the experiment. What totally amazes and confounds me is that in all the time since February, Levi et al did not simply repeat this otherwise excellently conceived experiment. It could have been improved and refined by running a blank determination to prove that the output power measurement was done right. It could have slowed the coolant flow for a more reliable larger delta T measurement. And it could have run much longer -- so long in fact that only nuclear energy could account for the result. Finally, it could have been done using the E-cat as a black box with *everything else* supplied by the university and not Rossi. If all that had been done with a positive result, we would have nothing to argue. As it is, we are left with nothing but embarrassing questions about Levi and his experiment and his motivation and ability -- questions he equivocates about in the embarrassing videos. The hard part for everybody who joined in the promotion and cheerleading for Rossi is that they neglected to consider the importance of science, the scientific method and scientific protocol. Krivit does not even understand basics about scientific method, because he is requiring control experiments for experiments where there is only one variable to be measured. Controls are only for multiple variable studies. You keep saying that but it's not correct. The purpose of controls (more precisely, blank runs in which nuclear fuel is left out but an electrical heater is providing comparable power) is to demonstrate that the measurement *method* and *devices* are working correctly. This has been argued at length -- steam or no steam, thermocouple placements, errors from the hot side of the heat exchanger through the block, and so on. ALL of that is gone if a blank test with an electrical heater gives the correct result at the output measurement end. Rossi knows that -- he's been told many times by probably dozens of people. That he doesn't do it is a strong suggestion that his reaction isn't real. What is most annoying with Krivit, that he has fixed his position without objective evidence. If evidence to support the claim is not adequate, then it does not follow that the claim is false. But as I mentioned that Krivit is concluding, from the inconclusive evidence, that Rossi is a fraudster and criminal. That's the main place I disagree with Krivit. I think Rossi *acts* like I would expect if he were a scammer. That doesn't prove he is one. Proof of what he is may never be available. But for sure, if the identity of a customer isn't revealed soon and Rossi continues to fail getting testing by the two universities he claims he has arrangements with, the whole story will seem more and more like a scam as time goes by.
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
Rossi and Ampenergo, or the the people behind Ampenergo at any rate, are not strangers. He has known them since the late 90s. Harry On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Steven the Snake wrote: 1. Rossi has publicly told all his fans that he will not ask for money until he has a product for sale. 2. They believed him and propagated this information widely but it is not true. This is false. Rossi has refused to take money from investor and private persons. Ampenergo was wholly different story. And we do not have any details about that, because Ampenergo's relationship with Rossi is unclear. Because of this blunder from the Snake, there is not much relevance for the rest, of his fighting against the windmills. This is pretty clear -- Rossi got a substantial sum from Ampenergo --or so they said. I tire of reposting it all the time because some people can't remember it: How much do you pay for the agreement? Cassarino: Unfortunately that’s confidential. Have you paid anything to Rossi yet? Cassarino: Yes we have. How much? Cassarino: Let’s put it like this, it was an important piece of the equation. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi prevails, Krivit will certainly look bad, and so will the entire scientific establishment. That's true. The skepticism of Rossi is justified. But if Rossi were to prevail, then the scientific establishment will have clearly failed to exploit a dramatically important effect identified 20 years ago -- an effect that is pretty straightforward to set up, and that should be trivial to demonstrate unequivocally. (Don't get me wrong; I don't expect this to happen. But if cold fusion is real, then the advocates are right in that science will have something to answer for.) We agree that 20 years is a long time to wait for acceptance if cold fusion is real and if it was truly identified by PF 20 years ago. If so, the entire scientific community must be incredibly obstinate or the proof for cold fusion isn't very good or some combination of both. Or maybe cold fusion has yet to be properly demonstrated and the sincere researchers are looking at errors and noise. As I've said before, I have no way to choose personally between those options. My interest is focused only on Rossi because of the robustness of the claims, the ease with which they could have been proven and weren't, and the incredibly weird way those claims have been promoted.
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: good question, Mary ! Any proof for: All we know is that after the Oct. 28 show, the shipping container with the 50 Fat-Cats was hauled away on a truck. ? As of last week The Customer had not taken delivery on the MegaCat. Rossi had to change the gaskets, etc. T
Re: [Vo]:Report On A Conversation With George Miley
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The point is, you expect it cool down during deloading, but it sometimes heats up instead. I think Rossi's cell did this on Oct. 6. Has anyone ever noted an anomalous lack of warming or even a temporary cooling during loading? Not to my knowledge. I guess that would be called an anomalous endothermic effect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:12 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: OK, I've now conceived of how the temperature is stabilized without feedback control, and it doesn't require anything like mixed phase flow. All it requires is pressure in the reaction vessel high enough to keep the liquid flow at the boiling point (for that pressure) and transport away all the power within the heat of latent heat provided by the nearly discontinuous rise in effective specific heat of water at the boiling point. Again, I don't follow. That sounds like a mixture of phases. The specific heat of water decreases at the boiling point. The specific heat of steam is about half that of liquid water, but it's more the heat transfer coefficient that is relevant there. If you're talking about the specific heat of liquid, it does not change discontinuously anywhere. My use of the qualifier effective specific heat could be replaced by effective mass flow rate -- the point is to project the effect of latent heat of vaporization into another dimension to illustrate its temperature control effect. I do not, of course, mean either the specific heat or mass flow rate change. The water pump pressure feeding the E-Cat could be very high relative to atmospheric pressure, and the pressure drop at the exit from the E-Cat could be quite substantial prior to the thermocouple, resulting in a dry -- even superheated -- steam. No, it would not convert from liquid to dry steam unless the temperature of the liquid water was over 600C, and that would require implausible pressures. That's true if there is no latent heat of vaporization represented in the liquid water. With careful setting of the water flow rate, one can approach vaporization within the reactor vessel without any actual vaporization. THAT is the critical parameter here. Indeed, for effective heat transfer, you don't want ANY vaporization as the heat transfer drops off precipitously as soon as you start forming surface bubbles. For Rossi to allow bubbles to form on the heat transfer surface would be dangerous if the reaction rate was indeed proportional to temperature as he says. Did Rossi carefully tweak his resistive heating sustained system so that he achieved, say, 200C inside the reaction vessel with a liquid water flow very close to, but not achieving vaporization? At this point, until convinced otherwise, I'm not willing to dispense with any further investigations on the speculation that he could not have done so. So my originally post problem of estimating the pressure at the output thermocouple still stands as critical in invalidating the Oct 28 demonstration. You'll have to explain it again for those of us with shit for brains, because it doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how you've countered the very simple claim that the well regulated temperature corresponds to a 1% regulation in power, unless there is a mixture of phases. Where did I call you shit for brains?
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
Joshua: If Rossi prevails, Krivit will certainly look bad, and so will the entire scientific establishment. Mary: I disagree. With the present evidence, there is every reason to be skeptical of Rossi. Joshua: That's true. The skepticism of Rossi is justified. Skepticism is justified, but what Krivit has provided, has nothing to do with skepticism, but is more like that he is rebelling and sulking to Rossi, because Rossi was not nice to him. Rossi treated Krivit really bad and unfair way. I almost sorry him, because Rossi ridiculed everything that Krivit so proudly stands for (i.e. Krivit is rigorous scientist). But if Rossi were to prevail, then the scientific establishment will have clearly failed to exploit a dramatically important effect identified 20 years ago -- an effect that is pretty straightforward to set up, and that should be trivial to demonstrate unequivocally. This is true that the Rossi's effect is trivial to demonstrate unconditionally. But this is also the reason, that Rossi has not had any interests to provide conclusive evidence to the public. I would speculate, that his popularity was perhaps too high, due to very positive reports in Italian media in May in aftermath of successful April tests, that he invited Krivit to discredit himself. What Rossi showed to Krivit was just abhorrent and awful and there was no question, that most likely there was no excess heat at all. Evidence for this is very clear, because small E-Cat never reached 5 kW output in previous demonstrations, but it was always around 2 kW. But also the input power was small. But here Rossi raised the input power to 800 watts, which was very odd. This does not fit at all for the general behavior of version 2 E-Cat aka E-Kitten. Rossi was already building the new model of Version 3 aka Fat-Cat that was demonstrated with Stremmenos in July (he announced the fat-cat ca. June 20th). It is not Rossi's style to show old models of E-Cats in demonstrations. Therefore it is most likely explanation, that Rossi only used Krivit to tarnish Rossi's own reputation by acting silly in particularly obvious way and showing dummy demonstration. Rossi anticipated that Krivit will write very angry scientific report and indeed it was a great success, because Rossi's media popularity went downhill. E.g. Physorg published very negative article citing Krivit's report in NET. I think that this is plausible explanation, because if Rossi wanted a good reputation he would have gained it easily. But he never even tried. I think that the main problem with Rossi was that the whole January demonstration did not suit into Rossi's plans. Because he wanted to have public announcement when he was commercially ready in October. Mary wrote: If Rossi produced, why would Defkalion not pay him? It's supposed to be the most valuable invention of the century! Because Defkalion was a phony company! (This is just my opinion, and it is based on similarly loose arguments like Krivit's arguments against Rossi. All pieces just suit well that Defkalion had anything substantial.) Mary: The purpose of controls (more precisely, blank runs in which nuclear fuel is left out but an electrical heater is providing comparable power) is to demonstrate that the measurement *method* and *devices* are working correctly. But it easier to calibrate the method during the drive. Even if thermocouple is misplaced (what is unlikely) there is still correlation between temperature and total enthalpy. Blank run is just too time consuming, but is far more valuable to do proper calorimetry with proper calibration of the method. Mary: ALL of that is gone if a blank test with an electrical heater gives the correct result at the output measurement end. Rossi knows that -- he's been told many times by probably dozens of people. That he doesn't do it is a strong suggestion that his reaction isn't real. Rossi does not allow it because the suggestion is nuts and wasting of time, because it is better to do proper calorimetry. Or perhaps, there was a blank run in June with Krivit's E-Cat. Why skeptics are not satisfied with that blank run! –Jouni
[Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
So you have water in the two 1000 l reservoirs with an average temperature of ~18 degrees (Celsius). Output temperature was 104.5 C average. I don't give a damn about steam. I presume the boiler wasn't operating at sub-atmospheric pressure, right? So let's just say that the water was heated to at least 100 degrees. 3716 liters of water flowed, came in at 18.3, came out at 100 and cooled down before going back into the reservoir, since the average temperature was 18 degrees. So delta T is 80 degrees. With a heat capacity of 4.2 kJ / kg / K we get : Q = 3716 kg × 4.2 kJ / kg / K x 80 K = 1.25 GJ. Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ. So that's 1 GJ of excess heat. -- Berke
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Yes. I was going to say this. Thanks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:19 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: That's true if there is no latent heat of vaporization represented in the liquid water. With careful setting of the water flow rate, one can approach vaporization within the reactor vessel without any actual vaporization. THAT is the critical parameter here. Indeed, for effective heat transfer, you don't want ANY vaporization as the heat transfer drops off precipitously as soon as you start forming surface bubbles. For Rossi to allow bubbles to form on the heat transfer surface would be dangerous if the reaction rate was indeed proportional to temperature as he says. Did Rossi carefully tweak his resistive heating sustained system so that he achieved, say, 200C inside the reaction vessel with a liquid water flow very close to, but not achieving vaporization? At this point, until convinced otherwise, I'm not willing to dispense with any further investigations on the speculation that he could not have done so. I recall the manometer registered 3 bar, which is 300kPa which corresponds to a potential liquid water temperature of 130C at the exit from the reaction vessel. This doesn't leave him a lot of room to play with before bubbles start forming on the heat transfer surface of the reactors, but there is some -- enough to make the system plausible.
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Mary: ALL of that is gone if a blank test with an electrical heater gives the correct result at the output measurement end. Rossi knows that -- he's been told many times by probably dozens of people. That he doesn't do it is a strong suggestion that his reaction isn't real. Rossi does not allow it because the suggestion is nuts and wasting of time, because it is better to do proper calorimetry. Or perhaps, there was a blank run in June with Krivit's E-Cat. Why skeptics are not satisfied with that blank run! –Jouni What blank run was that? Krivit did not make a blank run during that visit unless you consider the entire run a blank. I'd call it a dud or a fizzle. With apologies to non-English-speaking readers. If you're serious, it's silly. The purpose of a blank/calibration run, I say *again*, is to validate the measuring method and equipment. I know of no other iron clad way to do that. Without it, arguments about dryness of steam and thermocouple placement and pressure and endless others will continue. With a proper blank/calibration (if it's done correctly) all those arguments are untenable. It's ABSOLUTELY necessary. Any self respecting scientist would require it. I have no idea why you can't grasp that. It's usual and standard to calibrate calorimeters with electrical heaters. It's done every day!
Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:41 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I recall the manometer registered 3 bar, which is 300kPa which corresponds to a potential liquid water temperature of 130C at the exit from the reaction vessel. This doesn't leave him a lot of room to play with before bubbles start forming on the heat transfer surface of the reactors, but there is some -- enough to make the system plausible. BTW: The heat represented by the difference between 130C and 100C (30calories/gm) is about 5% of the heat of vaporization of water: ([30 * calorie] / gramm) / ([2201.4 * joule] / gramm) = 0.057056419 So that is Rossi's margin of error in the mass flow rate.
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
I need to add that a calibration run with an electrical heater supplying all the heat also provides very valuable information about the heat capacity and time constant of the system. And finally, if hydrogen (but nothing else) is omitted for the blank run, any chemical reaction or other subterfuge which is activated by heating would be revealed. Of course other ways of cheating are not totally excluded but proper blank and calibration runs would go a long ways to inconveniencing a potential scammer to the extreme if astute observers were standing by.
Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards
At 06:02 PM 11/15/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: and selected scientists to a demo of that device at which they were not allowed to oversee data collection? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41536.html [Vo]:Celani's report on Rossi January 14 test Jed Rothwell Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:58:29 -0800 /** All the measurements were made, INDEPENDENTLY, from a Researcher (and Technicians) of Bologna University. Rossi made only supervision about key safety aspects. */ ps : I'm preparing a table of experiments, attendees and equipment.
Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: ** On 11-11-16 08:59 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 11-11-15 10:31 AM, James Bowery wrote: The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and Fleischmann had any validity to their claims. This rhetorical maneuver denies the obvious Bayesian law of prior probability distribution: If PF's cold fusion claim was not valid then any subsequent claims of advances on PF's cold fusion claim are likewise invalidated. This is total nonsense. Experimental results must be judged on their own merit, whether or not the reason for doing the experiments in the first place was actually well founded. That would be true if the experimental protocol were available. In Rossi's case, the experimental protocol is NOT available. I guess you missed my point. Let me restate it, more clearly and succinctly. Your blanket statement that any subsequent claims of advances on PF's cold fusion claim are likewise invalidated if PF's result was invalid is false, and that is the case regardless of whether Rossi's work is scientifically impeccable, totally fraudulent, or just a mass hallucination shared by all posters to this list. Excuse my conflation of the Rossi case with the general case. Obviously, any experiment should be considered on its own merits in the scientific disciplines. However, the a priori (ie: Bayesian prior) probability of observing a particular phenomenon does relate to its having been reported before -- and the prior probability distribution does relate to expectation.
Re: [Vo]:The extent of opposition to breakthroughs is predicted by Szpak's dictum
On 11-11-15 10:49 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Suppose, in a parallel universe, scientists in 1990 did science instead of treating theory as a form of religion. If theory were treated as religion... OK, OK, you don't like any of Jed's examples. But here's one you may find harder to dismiss: For a couple of generations dinosaurs were said to be very much like big lizards: Cold blooded, slow moving, and most important, walking splay-legged. No available evidence supported this point of view, and in fact it had been believed, before the dark ages of dinosaur research set in, that things had been different. Museums around the world during this period set up their dino exhibits with the legs splayed out to the sides; the ceratopsians looked like a bunch of Marine recruits, frozen in the middle of perpetual push-ups. The whole lot looked ridiculous, if you thought about it, but nobody did -- paleontological thinking outside the box was strongly discouraged, even stamped out, for at least a couple generations. The darkness finally lifted two or three decades back. Bakker's book, The Dinosaur Heresies, may have played a role in finally turning the lights on; it came out around the time that paleontologists finally started thinking again, rather than just following the rules. If you look at illustrations showing reconstructions of dinosaurs in museums, you'll still see that half or more show them in the old push-up poses, because there were so many drawn that way. (In some museums there may even be an explanation with the pictures, pointing out that they're totally wrong. IIRC the Yale-Peabody in New Haven has such explanations posted, for example.) The thing that's spooky about this is that the view of dinosaurs we (at least us oldsters) grew up with was wrong-headed in a number of ways, blatantly wrong-headed, and yet *nobody* within the field challenged it, for decades. It was as though all of the world's paleontologists had been infected with some virus that blinded them when it came to certain things, like dinosaurs -- and yet, they couldn't see it. So, the question we're left with is ... how do you know if the field you're working in is infected with a similar virus?
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net wrote: The Wright brothers were certainly complicit in the lack of attention they received. Fearful of competitors stealing their ideas, and still without a patent, they flew on only one more day after October 5. From then on, they refused to fly anywhere unless they had a firm contract to sell their aircraft. They wrote to the U.S. government, then to Britain, France and Germany with an offer to sell a flying machine, but were rebuffed because they insisted on a signed contract before giving a demonstration. This contract was similar to what Rossi is asking for, except there was no escrow arrangement. The Wrights trusted national governments to pay according to contract. What they demanded was: The other party agreed to a price. The other party set performance standards, subject to the Wrights' agreement. If the Wrights met the performance, the other party would pay the agreed amount. This is an ordinary contract, and it would not normally be disputed, but many people thought that airplanes were impossible so the national governments hesitated to sign this agreement. Finally, thanks to Pres. Roosevelt intervention, the U.S. Army agreed to it. No money was paid until the Wrights demonstrated the airplane to the satisfaction of Army experts. Rossi is asking for similar terms. Fraud is impossible under these circumstances. Many authors feel that the Wrights were complicit but I disagree. It is true they kept a low profile. But I think this has been exaggerated. It was exaggerated first by the Scientific American magazine which began attacking the Wrights in 1906 and continued into the 21st century, most recently in 2003, publishing an article full of distortions and nonsense, try to justify their own original attacks. This is exaggerated for several reasons. First they got patent in 1906, which is not a low profile act. Second, the British and French governments sent agents to Dayton to meet with the Wrights. The Wrights showed them documents proving they had flown, the agents were immediately convinced and reported back to the governments that they should negotiate to buy airplanes. Unfortunately for the Wrights, the British and French government decided that it couldn't be that hard to build an airplane so they decided to do it themselves rather than buy one from the Wrights. The Wrights met with many other people and showed them documents, photographs, and so on, and they published interviews and letters in magazines. Furthermore, they did not fly because flying was extremely dangerous. It was not something you did on a whim. They had nearly been killed many times in accidents. In 1908 Orville was nearly killed again and suffered the rest of his life from his wounds. After 1909 I do not think they ever flew again. My take on this is here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf They were unwilling even to show their photographs of the airborne Flyer. This is nonsense. Many people, including the British and French government agents saw the photographs and spoke with people who observed flights. The Wrights had dozens of affidavits from leading citizens of Dayton attesting that they had seen flights. They showed the affidavits to the agents and invited them to speak with those people. If the U.S. Army had sent agents to Dayton I am sure they would have been convinced. The Army thought it was the Wright's job to convince *them*. They did not bother to send anyone. Granted, the Wrights should have sent a few photos to Washington. But they were so fed up with the officials after years of getting the run-around, so they did not do this. Along similar lines I have often asked leading cold fusion researchers to send some photos or other evidence to high officials in the US government. They say it is not worth bothering. They said they know they will be rejected out of hand. Rossi says the same thing, and he may well be right. If any magazine or newspaper had bothered to send a reporter to Dayton that reporter would also have been convinced. No newspaper or magazine bothered to send a reporter. Even the local newspapers did not bother to send anyone. There was a streetcar line running next to the field where the Wrights flew. People riding streetcars often saw them flying in circles. The streetcar driver would stop to let the passengers watch. These people often call the newspapers and asked why there was nothing about the flights. Here is a wonderful description of what happened next, from the authorized biography: Dan Kumler . . . city editor Daily News, in Dayton, recalled in 1940 . . . that many people who had been on interurban cars passing the Huffman field and seen the Wrights in the air used to come to the Daily News office to inquire why there was nothing in the paper about the flights. Such callers, said Kumler, got to be a nuisance. And why wasn’t there anything in the paper? Kumler was asked. [by the author of the
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
2011/11/16 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com: The purpose of a blank/calibration run, I say *again*, is to validate the measuring method and equipment. I know of no other iron clad way to do that. Without it, arguments about dryness of steam and thermocouple placement and pressure and endless others will continue. With a proper blank/calibration (if it's done correctly) all those arguments are untenable. It's ABSOLUTELY necessary. Any self respecting scientist would require it. I have no idea why you can't grasp that. It's usual and standard to calibrate calorimeters with electrical heaters. It's done every day! This is untrue, because blank run is trivial to falsify. It does not improve the reliability or reduce the probability of a hoax. Yet again it is far easier to do proper calibration of the calorimetry. Not using time consuming blank run, because it does not give us any increased accuracy of the measurements. If we measure for the total enthalpy 25 MJ ± 5MJ and we measure for the input energy using oscilloscope 5 MJ ± 50 kJ, then we get for the excess heat 20 MJ ± 5 MJ. Blank run does not provide any increased accuracy to our measurements, and we can just subtract the input energy that was measured with accuracy of ±50kJ. That is, we know the result of blank run a priori. In science, we are only interested to determine the proper error margins for the measurements. For example, that superluminal neutrino was observed with probability of six sigma. –Jouni Ps. you are correct, that blank run would give information about the heat capacity of E-Cat. E.g. Horace Heffner ignored in his analysis that Oct 6th Fat-Cat had very high heat capacity (ca. 18 MJ) that did not show in the calorimetry. (However I have not read his updated versions so I am not sure if he has discussed it in later versions.) But there is also the thing, that heat capacity is rather simple to calculate if we know the metal mass and water storage capacity.
[Vo]:Oct 28 Condenser Problem
Examining the condenser, the condenser channels are horizontal pipes in a vertical array. It _appears_ as though each of 7 channels does one round-trip, returning on the pipe just below. One channel would look like: ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid ___ Inflowing vapor (___ Outflowing liquid So the steam feeder and water collector pipes must be vertical. But this creates a problem on the water collection side: What is the water level in the vertical collector pipe and how is it to not interfere with the entry of steam at that level?
[Vo]:E-Cat's Big Scientific Coincidence?
Is there a plausible explanation for why the temperature at which reaction initiates in the E-Cat just happens to be so close to the boiling point of water? A NiH system doesn't bear any particular relationship to water that I can see. Is this a big scientific coincidence/serendipity or is there a plausible explanation for the apparent coincidence?
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
There are actually some technical difficulties with a blank run in the Rossi E-cat. Wet cold fusion researchers sometimes have used H2O in a blank run, and compared evolved heat using D2O with the blank output. If the D2O produces a heat measurement value higher than the H2O then they can conclude, with good certainty, that something interesting happened. That sort of yes/no blank comparison run is harder to arrange for the E-Cat. The trouble is that H2(gas)+Ni(powder) reacts exothermically, as the hydrogen is adsorbed onto the nickel. This means that a blank run using, say, nitrogen in place of hydrogen can be expected to produce *less* *measured* *heat* than the H2 run, even if there's no new chemistry or physics taking place in the loaded E-Cat. And that leaves you right back where you started, trying to do precise calorimetry on the loaded run to determine exactly how much excess heat was produced, and comparing it with a theoretical value for heat of adsorption. Alternatives which could give a more useful blank might include using D2 for the blank rather than N2, or using live H2 and Ni but leaving out the secret catalyst. But just how blank these blanks might be depends on details of the E-Cat's operation which are currently unknown to the general public, so it's not entirely clear how well they'd work. On 11-11-16 02:01 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: I need to add that a calibration run with an electrical heater supplying all the heat also provides very valuable information about the heat capacity and time constant of the system. And finally, if hydrogen (but nothing else) is omitted for the blank run, any chemical reaction or other subterfuge which is activated by heating would be revealed. Of course other ways of cheating are not totally excluded but proper blank and calibration runs would go a long ways to inconveniencing a potential scammer to the extreme if astute observers were standing by.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat's Big Scientific Coincidence?
Actually, the initiation temperature is much above 100 C. The heater is hidden within the heat sink device is close contact with the core. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 16, 2011 2:35 pm Subject: [Vo]:E-Cat's Big Scientific Coincidence? Is there a plausible explanation for why the temperature at which reaction initiates in the E-Cat just happens to be so close to the boiling point of water? A NiH system doesn't bear any particular relationship to water that I can see. Is this a big scientific coincidence/serendipity or is there a plausible explanation for the apparent coincidence?
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
You forgot to add the energy deposited during the heating period, about 2 hours, before the demonstration started the self-sustained mode.
[Vo]:Swedish Radio
The discussion on the Swedish Radio issue has concentrated on the scam elements. Krivit : Swedish Public Radio Turns Spotlight on Lewan and Ny Teknik http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/12/swedish-public-radio-turns-spotlight-on-lewan-and-ny-teknik/ Source: Radio Sweden http://sverigesradio.se/sida/gruppsida.aspx?programid=2795grupp=9286artikel=4797694 Google translate -- I highly recommend using the Chrome Broswer + Google translate The idea that one day we will be able to provide us with cheap, simple and green energy is an eternal dream. Now say two Italians that they have found a solution, they have developed the ultimate perpetual motion machine. It's just that no one may look at it. And no basis can test if it really works. Science Journalists are skeptical and really make a lot of warning bells. For example, the main character has a fake degree from Kensington University, and the findings have not been published in a scientific journal but only on Rossi's own page. Almost all media for that reason chose not to address this alleged invention any more attention.But there is one exception. New Technology in Sweden has in the past year written over 20 articles on Andrea Rossi's stunning gizmo - and now accused the newspaper to advertise a scam. I responded in defense of Mats : Thanks, Mr Lewan and NyTeknikPlease forgive my English : attempting to answer in Swedish would be more insulting. Mr Fredriksson says (via google translate) Not even the simple knowledge that energy can neither be produced or consumed first law of thermodynamics seems to have taken hold of the editorial staff and definitely not with Lewan. The eCat is presumed to be a Cold Fusion device. Has Mr Fredriksson heard of Einstein and his famous equation e = mc2 ? Cold Fusion is most likely real --- see http://lenr-canr.org/ for numerous successful experiments -- and is being actively investigated by NASA : see http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1983 Of course Mr Rossi won't let anyone look inside the eCat : until he has world-wide patents he must protect it as a trade secret. But he has invited several teams of scientists to conduct calorimetric tests to measure the excess energy, using their own instruments. In particular, Lewan brought his own calibrated thermometers. (Should a motoring journalist not accept a test drive in a Volvo, and bring his own stopwatch?). Lewan has reported accurately on his observations, with few comments of his own. This is in NO way in support of a scam. I congratulate Lewan and NyTeknik on their coverage. --- and was challenged on the blog (and -- politely and reasonably -- by Steve Krivit in email) SV:Thanks, Mr Lewan and NyTeknikRe Alan Fletcher: But he HAS invited several teams of scientists to conduct calorimetric tests to Measure the excess energy, Using Their own instruments. May I dispute this sentence by Mr. Fletcher. There has never been any calorimetry done by an outside independent scientist auditing Rossi's work and certainly not with their own equipment. Lewan is not a scientist affiliated with any university and a few temperature readings does not constitute a calorimetry test as Mr. Fletcher knows well. Mr. Rossi had made several invitations to renown scientists prior to Oct. 2011 and Mr. Rossi also promised that calorimetry will be done independently by them, but of course that did not happen. Now Mr. Rossi has said after the Oct. 28 test that no more tests will be conducted because he is in the process of commercializing his invention and has done so by selling of his 1MW plant to an unnamed putative buyer. LENR Learner, 2011-11-13 03:54 - I haven't answered that yet --- but I've prepared a table of Experiments/Attendees and Instruments http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_eai_table.php which IMHO substantially supports my comment. Comments, clarifications and corrections are appreciated. NOTE : to avoid massive cut-and-pastes, I'll repost this paragraph as soon as I get it back via vortex. --- ps Krivit has chosen not to reprint Lewan's comments. Google-translated : Re: Most embarrassing prestige, Lewan!Roger, I'll probably ask you to read on a bit. It produces no energy. If the unit does release the energy that seems to come from a yet unknown type of nuclear reaction, then, of course, by a corresponding reduction in the total mass. No breach of thermodynamics first movement, in other words. Probemet discussed is to obtain sufficient evidence that it really freed net energy. Whether that is theoretically explained or not does not matter. What is important when the Wright brothers
Re: [Vo]:This forum is not a supermarket checkout line tabloid
On 11-11-15 03:32 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Owners yes. Users no. And MAC address? You put your MAC address in your email headers? What on Earth for? (FWIW that's the address (in known space-time) of your network card, and it's not necessarily mapped 1:1 or even 1:n to user IDs, as a single machine may have multiple network cards.)
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat's Big Scientific Coincidence?
At 11:32 AM 11/16/2011, James Bowery wrote: Is there a plausible explanation for why the temperature at which reaction initiates in the E-Cat just happens to be so close to the boiling point of water? Mostly coincidence, but it also represents the point at which the entire system has heated up to its operating temperature. We have no idea what the core temperature is -- but it's most likely the Ni Curie temperature of 358°C (catalyst?)
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Radio
At 11:52 AM 11/16/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I haven't answered that yet --- but I've prepared a table of Experiments/Attendees and Instruments http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_eai_table.php which IMHO substantially supports my comment. Comments, clarifications and corrections are appreciated. NOTE : to avoid massive cut-and-pastes, I'll repost this paragraph as soon as I get it back via vortex. (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Regarding the Right Brothers, when proof became irrefutable that their contraption could fly under power, how did some of the most ardent (and well known) skeptics deal with the news? I'm curious as to what kind of follow-up might have been performed on these individual. Were some interviewed and asked as to what they were thinking about when the news finally sunk in? Did they simply change their opinion and tehn get on with the rest of their lives, or did some come up with other interesting rationalizations to explain their prior POVs? That is a very interesting question. The responses from three groups of skeptics has been preserved in history books. You can probably find more in original sources, such as books now available on Google. Anyway, the three groups I have in mind were: 1. Scientists 2. Rival aviators 3. People in small cities and rural places who still didn't believe it. This group went on disbelieving up to WWI. The first group was scientists who thought they were experts. As I wrote in my essay, they declared that a heavier-than-air flying machine was physically impossible. It was an absurdity, a gross violation of the laws of nature. This had been proved mathematically with 'unassailable logic' by leading experts in physics, writing in distinguished journals and magazines. These people did not say it is impossible to fly. Anyone could see birds and insects can fly. They said that no man-made machine would ever be larger than an insect. Some of them said that even if you manage to fly there is no method of landing without smashing the machine. Others said that no internal combustion engine will ever produce as a power to weight ratio as good as the muscles of a bird. These statements were preposterous but they were taken seriously in the mass media. After the Wright brothers flew, most of these people shut up. One of the most famous, Prof. Simon Newcomb, was contacted by reporters after the Orville flew in Washington DC in 1908. The reporter asked if he thought passenger planes would be the next step. Quoting the official biography, p. 228: No, Newcomb was reported to have replied, because no plane could ever carry the weight of anyone besides the pilot. It might have been expected that by this time professor Newcomb would have become more cautious! A few days later Orville flew with a passenger, as he had done months earlier -- a fact reported in many magazines. History does not record what Newcomb said after that, but for many years people opposed the development of aviation because they said it would it would never become a practical means of transportation, it would always be very dangerous, and it had no value for the military, in reconnaissance or for any other purpose. They tried to prevent national armies from wasting money on it. They successfully prevented the US army from developing aviation before 1917. If they had also prevented the British and French governments, the allies would have lost the war by 1916. Rivals included the French aviators, A. G. Bell, Curtiss, Chanute and others. Some were supportive of the Wrights all along. Others said the Wrights' claims were exaggerated. The French were particularly sarcastic until the day Wilbur flew in France. Most of them immediately admitted in the national press that they had been wrong. They praised the Wrights to the skies. F. Peyrey wrote: I shall try to give an idea of the incomparable mastery of the American aviators in the marvelous art of imitating the birds. For a long time -- for too long a time -- the Wright brothers have been accused in Europe of bluffing; perhaps even in their own land. Today they are hallowed by France, and I feel an intense pleasure in counting myself among the first to make amends for such flagrant injustice . . . I predict that no opponent of cold fusion will ever say anything so nice. Chanute -- who considered himself their mentor -- accused the Wrights of tying to make money from their invention instead of giving it over to society out of altruism. In the press Chanute modestly took credit for their work. Their long friendship ended badly. It is difficult to understand why he thought that two brothers who had worked night and day for eight years, risked all their money, and were nearly killed a dozen times should have handed over their invention for nothing. By the same token I wonder why people nowadays think that although Rossi has worked for 15 years and often risked his life he should be kind enough to give us his discovery for nothing, even though it is worth a trillion dollars. As I said, I wish that such people would please send me a check for all the money they have, as a favor, because I am such a nice person. A cashier's check would be great. My address is 1954 Airport Rd. Curtiss and others immediately began trying to prove that Langley had actually flown before the Wrights, in order to break the
Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.
Mary Yugo's recent cogent comments re blank runs are here replicated for emphasis: You keep saying that but it's not correct. The purpose of controls (more precisely, blank runs in which nuclear fuel is left out but an electrical heater is providing comparable power) is to demonstrate that the measurement *method* and *devices* are working correctly. This has been argued at length -- steam or no steam, thermocouple placements, errors from the hot side of the heat exchanger through the block, and so on. ALL of that is gone if a blank test with an electrical heater gives the correct result at the output measurement end. Rossi knows that -- he's been told many times by probably dozens of people. That he doesn't do it is a strong suggestion that his reaction isn't real. The purpose of a blank/calibration run, I say *again*, is to validate the measuring method and equipment. I know of no other iron clad way to do that. Without it, arguments about dryness of steam and thermocouple placement and pressure and endless others will continue. With a proper blank/calibration (if it's done correctly) all those arguments are untenable. It's ABSOLUTELY necessary. Any self respecting scientist would require it. I have no idea why you can't grasp that. It's usual and standard to calibrate calorimeters with electrical heaters. It's done every day! On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I need to add that a calibration run with an electrical heater supplying all the heat also provides very valuable information about the heat capacity and time constant of the system. And finally, if hydrogen (but nothing else) is omitted for the blank run, any chemical reaction or other subterfuge which is activated by heating would be revealed. Of course other ways of cheating are not totally excluded but proper blank and calibration runs would go a long ways to inconveniencing a potential scammer to the extreme if astute observers were standing by.
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Radio
That link got snipped away : I haven't answered that yet --- but I've prepared a table of Experiments/Attendees and Instruments http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_eai_table.php which IMHO substantially supports my comment. Comments, clarifications and corrections are appreciated.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat's Big Scientific Coincidence?
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a plausible explanation for why the temperature at which reaction initiates in the E-Cat just happens to be so close to the boiling point of water? The water never goes above 100°C because it is at one atmosphere. It boils. In the Defkalion system, they use another fluid such as ethylene glycol in the primary loop. It has a higher boiling point and it gets much hotter. This is a better method. There is no telling what the temperature inside the cell is. The temperature of an electric stove element or flame is much higher than 100°C but a pot of boiling water is always at this temperature, never higher, except in a pressure cooker. - Jed
[Vo]:Official ECAT site, finally?
This is the old ecat.com domain, that one with the videos about the October's experiments. Now, it was refurbished and it looks like really an official website. http://ecat.com/
Re: [Vo]:Official ECAT site, finally?
They even link directly to Jed Rothwell's website: http://ecat.com/ecat-technology I hope he doesn't mind giving out some free bandwidth! :) 2011/11/16 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com This is the old ecat.com domain, that one with the videos about the October's experiments. Now, it was refurbished and it looks like really an official website. http://ecat.com/
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: So you have water in the two 1000 l reservoirs with an average temperature of ~18 degrees (Celsius). Output temperature was 104.5 C average. I don't give a damn about steam. I presume the boiler wasn't operating at sub-atmospheric pressure, right? So let's just say that the water was heated to at least 100 degrees. 3716 liters of water flowed, came in at 18.3, came out at 100 and cooled down before going back into the reservoir, since the average temperature was 18 degrees. So delta T is 80 degrees. With a heat capacity of 4.2 kJ / kg / K we get : Q = 3716 kg × 4.2 kJ / kg / K x 80 K = 1.25 GJ. Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ. So that's 1 GJ of excess heat. Excess, or stored, or chemically produced? As Albert said, the ecats were heated for 2 hours beforehand, and the power was not given, but at 250 kW input for 2 hours, less an average of (at most) 35 kW output during that time, that gives 215 kW x 2 hours x 3600 J/Wh = 1.5 GJ So a total output energy less than the total input energy is consistent with the data provided. And that leaves aside the possibility of energy production by chemical means. What is abundantly clear is that the demonstration, even if you accept the data presented, is a long way from being an unequivocal demonstration of heat in excess of what could be stored or produced chemically.
[Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.
look professional http://ecat.com/
Re: [Vo]:Official ECAT site, finally?
WTF THEY MENTION WIDOM LARSEN THEORY AS THE THEORY FOR THE E-CAT!!! http://ecat.com/ecat-technology/ecat-science 2011/11/16 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com They even link directly to Jed Rothwell's website: http://ecat.com/ecat-technology I hope he doesn't mind giving out some free bandwidth! :) 2011/11/16 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com This is the old ecat.com domain, that one with the videos about the October's experiments. Now, it was refurbished and it looks like really an official website. http://ecat.com/
Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.
I already posted this, LOL! 2011/11/16 David ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.com look professional http://ecat.com/
