Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
At 01:48 AM 8/4/2011, Rich Murray wrote: I'm paying very little attention to any of the cold fusion stuff now, assessing that nothing yet is independently reproducible to refute the null hypothesis of no anomalies... There is a large body of data showing independent reproducibility for cold fusion phenomena. CF has been plagued by the erratic nature of the phenomenon, due to its apparent sensitivity to unadequately understood conditions. However, there is a single reproducible experiment, that's been done by many groups, and that actually covers many of the early negative replications, which form a body of controls. It's just that it doesn't match the usual -- and obviously defective -- concept of reproducible that's been held up. This would be heat/helium. Basically, run a series of Pons-Fleischmann type cells, designed to make the collection of helium possible. Miles was the original researcher to do this, in depth. Measure the heat, and collect and measure helium. Use the state of the art, as to achieving the PF heat effect. The null hypothesis is that heat and helium are not correlated. This has been done by many groups, in fact. No heat, no helium. Heat, helium proportional to the heat within experimental error of 24 MeV. There is practically no contrary data. Like a lot of experiments, it's not easy to perform, and there is no longer much need to perform it. It's been done enough, my sense, but there could be room to determine that ratio more exactly. Not all LENR will produce helium, but PdD in a Pons-Fleischmann experiment apparently does, and the fuel, from the ratio found, is apparently deuterium, which is only a surprise because d-d fusion was so unexpected. In fact, the reaction is probably not d-d, though that possibility is not *entirely* ruled out, and, my sense is that nobody really knows. No theory is sufficiently well elaborated to claim the prize, not yet. That's really a job for the quantum physicists, though some additional skills or knowledge sets are probably needed. But helium is being produced, regardless of theory. There is practically no radiation. There are quite low levels of other transmutations, and that, if you want to doubt it, isn't as well established, and data is all over the map. But the main reaction, as we can tell from the heat, produces helium.
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
At 01:48 AM 8/4/2011, Rich Murray wrote: Thanks, Abd, for being so forthright My sense is that most cold fusion researchers have become quite skeptical about Rossi. A few are supportive, but mostly this boils down to them thinking that Rossi's claim confirms their own understanding of Ni-H. Even they are realizing that Rossi has probably faked some demonstrations. By the way, the 18-hour test, on its own, certainly seems convincing, but the problem is that we can't trust it. Cold fusion researchers in general have been burned by years of rejection, so they are very reluctant to, themselves, reject. Rossi is a challenge to these, for, if they really look at the Rossi claims, they might gain more sympathy for the skeptics as to cold fusion. Skepticism was a rational response in 1989, and the politics of the situation effectively suppressed the wide dissemination of contrary evidence. Pseudoskepticism is an entirely different phenomenon. It's not genuine skepticism, because genuine skepticism remembers to be skeptical of self.
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 01:48 AM 8/4/2011, Rich Murray wrote: Thanks, Abd, for being so forthright My sense is that most cold fusion researchers have become quite skeptical about Rossi. You have surveyed them? Could you list those who have had an about face. Most encompasses a rather large number of individuals. T
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: By the way, the 18-hour test, on its own, certainly seems convincing, but the problem is that we can't trust it. It's seems to me that most of the people talking about Rossi-Focardi would like to have a proof given personally to them to believe In my opinion there are only two facts which we can judge: 1) Rossi-Focardi had given a private demonstration of their reactor to the University of Bologna (the so called 18-hour test) which later signed a contract to study the reactor. 2) The same happened with the university of Uppsala, but for what we know at the moment they have not signed a similar agreement. The rest is totally pointless to discuss. The public tests are useless, for whatever rossi would show in a public test, people would find flaws in it saying that it doesn't constitute a proof. Rossi has choose not to follow the scientific path of publishing results and wait peer reviews. This is perfectly legitimate and I can even think good reasons in doing this beside his justifications about patents and trade secrets.
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: My sense is that most cold fusion researchers have become quite skeptical about Rossi. As Terry said, you have not conducted a public opinion poll so you have no basis for having this sense. At ICCF-16 and later I spoke with several people who attended the first demonstration, and who have been in contact with Levi, Rossi and the others. They have no doubt the effect is real. They have not expressed any reservations to me. A few are supportive, but mostly this boils down to them thinking that Rossi's claim confirms their own understanding of Ni-H. Even they are realizing that Rossi has probably faked some demonstrations. Who are these people -- they who who realize he probably faked some demonstrations? Which ones? How did he fake them? That is an outrageous accusation. There is not a shred of evidence to support it. I can think of some ways in which some -- by no means all -- of the demonstrations might be fakes, but I do not know any reason to think they actually have been. You should think twice about making such inflammatory and baseless accusations against Rossi, Forcardi, Levi and the others. There is no chance Rossi is faking and these other people are unaware of it. Despite the blather written here, any method of producing fake results would readily apparent to Levi or any other experimentalist in five minutes. He has to be cahoots with Rossi. By the way, the 18-hour test, on its own, certainly seems convincing, but the problem is that we can't trust it. We can trust it as much as we can trust any other cold fusion experiment. Or any boiler safety certificate. Cold fusion has been observed roughly 14,000 times. In nearly every case, the tests were private, observed by one person or more often by no one -- only recorded by instruments. If you can only trust tests done in the presence of independent observers, you will not believe in cold fusion, or the Top Quark, or any of thousands of other experimental results. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Well, Jed, maybe you're right at the cusp of a complete switch of your gestalt of understandings re the Rossi phenomenon -- a little more likely when waking up in the morning, you notice your entire system of interpretations has irrevocably reversed, like a 3D shift in the way a wire cube seems to face -- can't be forced or rushed -- just happens -- like remembering a name a few minutes after choosing to stop trying to recall it... Rich, FIWI, when it comes to predicting the psychological machinations of individuals it is best to use oneself as the guinea pig. (I have no problem exploiting my own faults and quirky predilections when it comes to psycho babble. I have given myself permission to exploit myself.) OTOH, psychoanalyzing and exploiting others in public without their expressed consent, making predictions pertaining to how others are likely to behave, while simultaneously standing aloof, as if you are above it all is bullshit psychology. Mr. Beaty, IMHO, you might want to keep a watch on Mr. Murray. If Mr. Murray's propensity to exploit pop psychology persists I think it may warrant a temporary time out from the Vort sand box. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Just to clarify: I said: ...If Mr. Murray's propensity to exploit pop psychology persists I think it may warrant a temporary time out from the Vort sand box. What I meant to say is that if Mr. Murray's propensity to exploit pop psychology IN ATTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE PERSONALLY PERCEIVED FAULTS IN OTHERS persists I think it may warrant a reprimand, or a temporary time out from the Vort sand box. Shoot, I'm guilty of exploiting paup-siecology all the time. However, I try to limit the damage to myself and myself alone. I'm sure I may have bent the rules on occasion. Nobody's perfect. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Ironic, yet natural, that what Abd is trying to catalyze Jed to understand about Rossi, Rich is trying to catalyze Abd to understand about all cold fusion claims to date -- rather than continue to blather forever about claims that go back 22 years, let's consider whether any evidence has been found in currently operating experiments in 2011 for any anomalous excess heat, radiation, transmutations, or isotopic shifts, especially well and specifically described experiments that can be or even are being replicated by independent groups -- so, what's up, Doc -- I truly am all ears... Meanwhile, back at the ranch, just yesterday... Reviewing Ny Teknik Video: Did Rossi Play With Power Setting? Steven B. Krivit | August 5, 2011 at 03:10 | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pV5rZ-eW In one of the last appendices (#35) to our recent Report #3 on Andrea Rossi and his energy claim, we wrote about a videotaped demonstration of Rossi's device by Mats Lewan of Swedish magazine Ny Teknik. Lewan approaches the bucket and the hose. No steam is visible or audible. Two seconds later, it is. Lewan goes back to the main room, and his camera shows Rossi with his hand near the power controls. The power was supposed to be constant during the test. Comments welcome. watch?v=uviXoafHWrUw=425h=349 [ a compelling second by second dissection of deliberate duplicity... ] In mutual service, Rich
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
From Rich: The following is obviously abbreviated and probably taken out of context: ...rather than continue to blather forever about claims that go back 22 years, Ah, I see the blather word is now being used to explain CF claims for the past 22 years. Look, Rich, expressing your skepticism towards a number of CF claims is perfectly acceptable. We ALL have differing perspectives on these matters. I've obviously expressed opinions that imply Rossi's somewhat unpredictable wunder-cats are likely to an authentic phenomenon, but I could be wrong. Hopefully, we'll all know a lot more before the end of the year... but then perhaps not. What is less acceptable, IMHO, is to publicly psycho-analyze the perceptions of others in a manner that is not conducive of generating a genuine feedback from the individual you have targeted. You use interesting words, like catalyze that seemingly gives a more statesmanlike impression of your intentions, of trying to assist others to see-the-light. But I think you might be failing to consider the possibility that the light you wish others to be catalyzed by may be nothing more than the light bulb burning within the confines your own head. State your case and leave it at that. Unless specifically invited to so so, stop trying to state the cases of others - for their benefit. They are perfectly capable of doing that for themselves. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
as mighty mensch, I don't try to catalyze, I do catalyze... these are tough big boys, highly competent at maintaining their own, happy to play on multiple levels... In mutual service, Rich
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Well, Jed, maybe you're right at the cusp of a complete If Mr. Murray's propensity to exploit pop psychology persists I think it may warrant a temporary time out from the Vort sand box. The text is about me. It seems harmless. I auto-delete Murray's messages so they don't bother me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
At 01:57 PM 8/4/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: Except that the data recorded in a boiler test is EXACTLY what you see here, for crying out loud! To be more specific, I mean that they record only one value for temperature and one for the flow, even though these values probably fluctuated measurably over the course of the test. The boiler test might call for the inspector to record temperature and flow every minute for 10 minutes. Or it might demand a graph of automatically recorded data, or a high/low value. It does not; it asks only for a single value for each parameter. This reduces accuracy somewhat. This argument is preposterous. It's true, which makes it no less preposterous. A boiler is a very well-understood device, with centuries of experience behind it. There are no questions about the operation of a boiler; rather there are some parameters which have been found to be indicative of proper function, and possible problems, with the boiler. Long experience has shown that if there is a problem, these simple measurements will show it. Imagining that testing an experimental device with unknown operating characteristics can be handled with a boiler form is what's preposterous. Yes, if all the procedures for taking the measurements have been designed by experts, and if fraud is not suspected, sure, it could be done.
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Imagining that testing an experimental device with unknown operating characteristics can be handled with a boiler form is what's preposterous. The operating characteristics are not unknown. They are readily apparent. Anyone can the thing produces heat at a stable rate. Levi et al. can see that is what it is doing, so they know they can summarize the entire run with one temperature difference, except for the heat excursion. We can ignore that and still get a reasonable approximation of performance. Anyway that would only add to the total energy. If this machine behaved like one of Mizuno's glow discharge reactors, with power fluctuating from zero to high values from second to second, then one observed number would be meaningless. You would have to have the computer find an average value for excess power. The fact that the eCat heat is stable can be established with perfect confidence by watching the instruments. The temperatures do not fluctuate much. The flow rate is stable. Input power is stable. That's proof that the reaction is stable, and proof that you need only one set of numbers to summarize the results. The reason it is stable is a mystery, but it is irrelevant. For that matter the cause of the heat is a mystery, also irrelevant. Calorimetry treats all sources of heat as a black box. It makes no difference at all whether the heat is from electricity, a chemical reaction, a nuclear reaction, or something unknown to science. There is no way you can distinguish between these sources of heat, except by measuring net energy over time. Yes, if all the procedures for taking the measurements have been designed by experts, and if fraud is not suspected, sure, it could be done. These are experts, and there is no chance of fraud. Levi or any experienced person would spot any method of fraud in a few seconds, as quickly as he would spot a gross experimental error. The two are exactly the same: there is no method of fraud that is not also a potential experimental error. The only difference is intent. People committing fraud intend to set up the experiment in a way that produces a misleading result. People making errors do the same thing by accident. Any experimentalist has spent decades looking for mistakes and will find deliberate fraud as easily as he finds mistakes. There is no subtle or hidden method of committing fraud such such as simple system. Alan Fletcher went to a lot of trouble listing many plausible methods of committing fraud. Probably he listed nearly all plausible methods, and several implausible ones. There was not one method on his list that I would not have spotted instantly if I had an opportunity to poke around inside the eCat. Levi did have that opportunity and I am sure he is better at experiments than I am. In the test that Krivit observed, in the segment shown on the video, fraud is possible. It would be simple to commit fraud in what what shown in the video. You could use a hidden battery or wire. Krivit did not use his own instruments to confirm the readings, and he did not poke around inside the eCat. Perhaps Krivit poked around earlier, but it was not shown in the video. When I asked Rossi if I would be allowed to poke around, he said no. I would never attend a test with that restriction for the obvious reason that you cannot rule out fraud unless you are allowed to pick the thing up, weight it, look for wires, look inside it, estimate the size of the enclosed cell, and so on. Levi did all of that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
At 02:32 PM 8/4/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: No boiler is designed to create very wet steam as a possibility. Now, the 18-hour test doesn't involve steam. That was the point. But no boiler will be tested with water at a liter per second! That is incorrect. A large boiler will be tested at 1 L per second or more. Jed, your comprehension of what is being written is failing. Yes, there was an error there, in how I expressed this. No boiler would be tested with absolute maximum possible flow rate, raising the temperature only five degrees, with the measurement being taken inside the boiler, instead of external to it. Rossi's upcoming 1 MW test will have to employ even higher flow rates. The issue isn't the flow rate, per se, it is the flow rate for a boiler with only 20 kW of power, perhaps. This rate was perhaps a little high for a 16 kW reactor, because it meant the temperature difference was only ~5°C. Bingo. A little high. It had been suggested that they raise the flow rate, but, instead of raising it just enough, and not a whole lot more, they raised it by a factor of 250X. You want increased flow rate, we give you increased flow rate! Are you clowns ever going to be satisfied? I think a difference of 10°C to 15°C would be better. Actually, a difference of about 60 degrees would have been even better. I don't know if these people know what a valve is. However, 1 L/s turned out to be a wise choice. Levi reported in NyTeknik that power rose to ~130 kW for a while, with the outlet temperature reaching 40°C. At a lower flow rate this might have caused a serious accident. What happened there is entirely unclear. The 130 kW calculated power showed up at the beginning. Now, what I'd have expected would be that the reactor might have been started up as it was, and while there was the relatively high heat, coolant flow would not have been reduced. But when it stabilized, cooolant flow would have been reduced to produce a more robust temperature rise. And I doubt that a boiler would be tested with the thermometer place in the boiler itself, unless the design had been proven to produce even temperatures within the boiler. The thermometers were not placed in the Rossi boiler itself. They were placed just outside it, which is where they are placed in a regular boiler test, in the boiler rooms I have seen. You are depending on Rossi's descriptions of the internals. I don't know if you've realized it, but Rossi has no obligation to disclose those internals, and nobody has verified any of them. We must assume that the thermometer is inside. The thermometer appears to be in the chimney, at the bottom, so we could just as easily say that it's in the cooling chamber. Further, remember the band heater? That heats the cooling chamber. Is the thermomenter in contact with the outside, the surface against which the band heater is placed? There was practically no power input to the E-cat during the 18-hour test (after startup). There was, as described, no way to control the cooling water. So how was control established? They usually use bimetallic dial thermometers. At these temperature differences and flow rates there is no way heat might have wicked directly to the temperature sensors. Famous last words. no way. You are thinking of the cartridge heater. What about the band heater? Have you ever wondered what the function of the band heater is? It heats the outside of the E-cat. Boiler test engineers are working with long-proven designs that have known operating characteristics. That has no bearing on calorimetry. It sure does. There are many things that can go wrong with calorimetry, you know that. When the same stable temperatures and flow rates are observed with a mysterious black box, you can be certain that box is producing heat at the same rate as a conventional boiler. The laws of physics are uniform. Okay, what *stable* temperature was observed? Where is the data? We have no plot of temperature. We have no record of all the measurements, i.e., many temperature measurements. We have an estimate of stable temperature from someone who was not there all the time. What we have is a sketcy report, obviously of interest. But Levi has not published the data, nor any formal report, and it seems he has no intention of doing so. Yet you want to rely on this report? Isn't it interesting that the only test that had a possibility of actually showing significant heat not only shows much more heat than the open demonstrations purport to show, but also involves nobody but involved persons. Steam systems typically recycle the water, it's recirculated, and there is no input water . . . All industrial boilers produce hot water or process steam which is consumed by the industrial process. There would be no point to circulating the steam as such. Perhaps if it were used for space
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
At 07:51 AM 8/5/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 01:48 AM 8/4/2011, Rich Murray wrote: Thanks, Abd, for being so forthright My sense is that most cold fusion researchers have become quite skeptical about Rossi. You have surveyed them? Could you list those who have had an about face. Most encompasses a rather large number of individuals. No. I have access to the private CMNS list, but I have not done a poll. And definitely I'm not going to name names. What I wrote was my sense. Further, skeptical means that they recognize that the Rossi claims are quite a bit weaker than first impressions indicated. Many have reported becoming far less sure about this. Some have become openly skeptical, to the point of asserting some level of fraud. Notice, please: fraud does not mean that there is no effect. That's a non sequitur. However, once fraud is on the table, there is no recovery except with *independent* confirmation.
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Rich, I see Mr. Rothwell has found his own unique way of assessing your assessments of his alleged faults. According to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensch ...the Yiddish term mensch means a person of integrity and honor. Actually, your response is somewhat cryptic and open to interpretation. Correct me if I error here, but I take it you perceive yourself as a person who possesses integrity and honor. You also seem to be saying that you don't try so much to catalyze others, but instead attempt to catalyze them directly. It's been my experience that few wish to be directly catalyzed by others, not without first clearly inviting for such direction. It doesn't matter what multiple-level one wishes to play such games on either - be it on the physical, astral, mid-causal, or in the middle of Aunt Martha's strawberry patch. The point being, did Mr. Rothwell invite you to directly catalyze him? If not, it was very presumptuous of you. All that such hard-earned direct mensch-ness is likely to accomplish is to be relegated to the auto-delete file. In which case the only mutual service going on here is the continued servicing one's own personal paradigms. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: No boiler would be tested with absolute maximum possible flow rate, raising the temperature only five degrees, with the measurement being taken inside the boiler, instead of external to it. That is incorrect. I have seen people do boiler tests with small Delta T temperatures. Maybe not 5°C, but small. I think a difference of 10°C to 15°C would be better. Actually, a difference of about 60 degrees would have been even better. With an ordinary boiler no one ever uses such a high temperature difference. You can't. Boilers for potable hot water don't go above 45°C, as I mentioned yesterday. That is not safe. A 60°C would mean the high temperature is around 80°C. A large flow water at that temperature would be dangerous to work with. As I reported, this can cause serious injury in 2 to 7 seconds. Also as I mentioned, temperatures above ~35°C tend to degrade the accuracy of the calorimetry. I don't know if these people know what a valve is. They used a tap, which is a valve. What happened there is entirely unclear. The 130 kW calculated power showed up at the beginning. Okay, so what is unclear about that? It showed up for 20 minutes and then they reduced power. I would have reduced power too. Now, what I'd have expected would be that the reactor might have been started up as it was, and while there was the relatively high heat, coolant flow . . . What you would have expected is not a particularly useful guide to a mysterious reaction of this nature. The heat is manifestly steady and predictable -- the numbers show that -- but the mechanism is unknown, so I do not see how you can have expectations. The thermometers were not placed in the Rossi boiler itself. They were placed just outside it, which is where they are placed in a regular boiler test, in the boiler rooms I have seen. You are depending on Rossi's descriptions of the internals. No I am depending on what I see in the photos, and what people who looked inside the reactor told me, for crying out loud. If the inlet thermocouple was inside the reactor it would not show tap water temperature. I don't know if you've realized it, but Rossi has no obligation to disclose those internals, and nobody has verified any of them. Yes, they have. By taking the thing apart and looking inside. It is not complicated inside. There was practically no power input to the E-cat during the 18-hour test (after startup). There was, as described, no way to control the cooling water. So how was control established? I don't follow. You don't control the cooling water. You leave the flow rate unchanged in a test of this nature. The reaction was stable after the heat excursion. At these temperature differences and flow rates there is no way heat might have wicked directly to the temperature sensors. Famous last words. no way. You are thinking of the cartridge heater. What about the band heater? It is far from the thermocouples. Okay, what *stable* temperature was observed? A 5°C Delta T, according to everyone who was there. If you don't believe them, then you wouldn't believe time-sequenced data either. Where is the data? We have no plot of temperature. You don't need one. The temperature was stable for 18-hours. Granted it would be nice to see one, but it is not necessary, any more than it is for a conventional boiler tests. There were no significant fluctuations so a plot is not necessary. We have no record of all the measurements, i.e., many temperature measurements. They said they kept an eye on it and it did not change much. That is how an inspector does a boiler test. That is an old fashioned way of doing an experiment, but it is perfectly valid. It this had been a glow discharge experiment that would be ridiculous. We have an estimate of stable temperature from someone who was not there all the time. All of the time they were there, the temperature was stable. I gather they used a video camera to monitor the data when they were not there. What we have is a sketcy report, obviously of interest. But Levi has not published the data, nor any formal report, and it seems he has no intention of doing so. Yet you want to rely on this report? I rely on this report plus a bunch of other reports, plus eye-witness accounts by Celani and other people I trust, plus many other studies of the Ni-H system. Overall I would say the evidence is extremely strong. It is better than the evidence for many weaker cold fusion claims that were measured with better instruments but at lower s/n ratios. I would prefer to have more data and better reports, as I have said many times. That's right. Which is why, for any scientific conclusions, we require independent confirmation. Levi, Celani and EK are independent of Rossi. This is pretty good verification, if not replication. I rather doubt that Levi is a fraud, per se. Rossi, I abandoned my
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Re: “DESCRIBE PERSONALLY PERCEIVED FAULTS IN OTHERS” This predisposition of many mainstream critics of out-of-the-box thinkers as abnormal and aberrant is deeply rooted in human nature as an evolutionary adaptation fostered by natural selection to enhance the survival of the race. The human race in the only organism that uses the acquisition and application of knowledge about the environment, in which they live to adapt to that environment and/or change it to enhance their prospects for survival. These critics of aberrant thinking feel a deep subconscious threat rooted in this thinking to both their personal survival and the continuation of humanity as a species. Most people will follow the example and lead of authority figures to determine truth and validity. This starts at an early age when children draw example from their parents to acquire knowledge and the appropriateness of behavior. This “normal” behavior to mimic authority figures extends throughout the schooling of the child where the child looks toward their teachers and mentors for queues in the acquisition of knowledge and the suitability and correctness of behavior. After school, the queues of culture come from their supervisors, mentors and peers. The subconscious urge to conform is deeply rooted in the essence of our humanity and is always accompanied by the need to avoid bullying, or deflect criticism from peers, and disapproval as a social sigma though it can also reflect suppression of personality. Conformity is especially strong in the young and is often associated with adolescence and the youth culture, but strongly affects humans of all ages. The recent analysis of the human genome indicates that mankind experienced an evolutionary choke point where the number of humans fell to a mere few thousand. I thing at this crucial time in the history of man, this hallmark trait of human nature was deeply ingrained in us some 70,000 years ago in the formulating crucible of modern humanity, when the harsh and forbidding South African desert environment for human survival was most cruel. There, small bands of hunter gatherer bushmen endured and adapted to the extreme conditions by teaching their children all the hard earned survival lessens the elders gained over their short lifetimes. These ways and means of the desert were the only things that kept the nomadic troop alive. The children that did not learn these survival techniques from their elders did not live to pass on this precious life sustaining knowledge. Only the most precocious, attentive, and conformant young students learned their lessons of the desert well enough to pass on their genes in the ever present natural selection extreme weeding out process. These very few and highly selected individuals became the seeds from which contemporary humanity has sprung. However, there is always a genetic mutation process that flows from the impact of the environment on the genome that introduces individuals into society that literally do not see the world as most others. As it so happens in the normal course of events there comes into our existence intelligent individuals in the extreme that from the earliest age try to adapt to the formulated mechanisms of culture but most often fail to thrive. These individuals suffer from perceptual problems that cause them to see the world differently from the mainstream of humanity. These perceptual and behavioral afflictions force unusual coping mechanisms to develop in them. These coping strategies are the place where most out-of-the-box thinking comes from. These learning disabled do poorly in school when young and suffer from visual, auditory, and physical disability, dyslexia, autism, behavior compulsions, and attention disorders. As their personalities form, their behavior is most often described as eccentric or kooky by the mainstream. But their unusual perception of the world and behavior in it every so often make unbelievable and momentous breakthroughs in science, technology, art, and engineering possible that are way beyond the abilities of “normal” people. These people oftentimes provide the accent of man with a quantum leap in perception, beauty and understanding that ordinary people cannot. Some examples that illustrate this caliber of man is listed as follows: Alexander Graham Bell Thomas Alva Edison Albert Einstein Henry Ford Dr Temple Grandin Stephen Hawking Isaac Newton Leonardo Da Vinci Michelangelo Nikola Tesla Ludwig Von Beethoven Mozart Tomas Jefferson Galileo, Louis Pasteur As more is becoming known about Rossi; the way he sees the world; the way he interacts with others; the more his mainstream critics holds his unusual and eccentric nature against him. He is an out-of-the-box thinker; obsessive in behavior; steadfast in his opinions and beliefs with a great distain for the path most traveled and conformance to
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
At 09:15 AM 8/5/2011, Enzo wrote: On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: By the way, the 18-hour test, on its own, certainly seems convincing, but the problem is that we can't trust it. It's seems to me that most of the people talking about Rossi-Focardi would like to have a proof given personally to them to believe Well, that's certainly not me. I'm looking at the evidence available and commenting on how it occurs to me. Take it or leave it. Or are you looking for some proof given personally to you? In my opinion there are only two facts which we can judge: 1) Rossi-Focardi had given a private demonstration of their reactor to the University of Bologna (the so called 18-hour test) which later signed a contract to study the reactor. You have connected two events as if one caused the other. In fact, the University of Bolgna has declared, as I recall, that there is no such contract. A contract may have been offered, possibly, but it's really contingent, if the rumors are correct, on delivery of the 1 MW reactor, or else there isn't any money. Rossi's stated that he spent his last money on the UB agreement. No proof. 2) The same happened with the university of Uppsala, but for what we know at the moment they have not signed a similar agreement. The demonstration referred to here must be the Kullander and Essen demo, which wasn't officially connected with the UU. In fact, an agreement to investigate, particularly if accompanied by funding, as asserted about the unconfirmed UB contract, means almost nothing. It absolutely is not a validation. The rest is totally pointless to discuss. The public tests are useless, for whatever rossi would show in a public test, people would find flaws in it saying that it doesn't constitute a proof. Nope. Rossi could easily have arranged -- indeed, merely allowed -- conclusive demonstrations. He set up something very different. Rossi has choose not to follow the scientific path of publishing results and wait peer reviews. This is perfectly legitimate and I can even think good reasons in doing this beside his justifications about patents and trade secrets. Sure. He has no obligation to do any demos at all. I've been saying this for months. But he did do demos and so we have examined them, and some very surprising facts and implications have surfaced. For example, did you realize that a boiler with constant water inflow, exceeding the rate of vaporization, would overflow, and if the overflow is through an opening over which is blowing all generated steam, that about 5% vaporization could be enough to generate steam that is 95% wet? It's an atomizer, the way it's designed. No boiler would be designed that way, deliberately, if the goal is to deliver reasonably dry steam. Lots of people have been familiar with steam quality issues, and they missed this, because they never even imagined that someone would design a system to be extremely efficient at making very wet steam, so they thought that the steam quality objection was silly, since 5% wetness couldn't possibly affect the results so much!
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 09:15 AM 8/5/2011, Enzo wrote: 1) Rossi-Focardi had given a private demonstration of their reactor to the University of Bologna (the so called 18-hour test) which later signed a contract to study the reactor. You have connected two events as if one caused the other. In fact, the University of Bolgna has declared, as I recall, that there is no such contract. A contract may have been offered, possibly, but it's really contingent, if the rumors are correct, on delivery of the 1 MW reactor, or else there isn't any money. Rossi's stated that he spent his last money on the UB agreement. No proof. No proof?? Are you sure? Come on... how can someone assert such a false statement as a contract with a university when that can easily be denied... For the announcement of the University of Bologna take a look here: http://www.df.unibo.it/bacheca/bacheca.htm
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
eee, maybe Rich is a which doctor...
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Yes, this describes Rich very well during his 69 years of life -- here is his most recent epistle attempting to lure others into unusual scientific researches: On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Re: “DESCRIBE PERSONALLY PERCEIVED FAULTS IN OTHERS” This predisposition of many mainstream critics of out-of-the-box thinkers as abnormal and aberrant is deeply rooted in human nature as an evolutionary adaptation fostered by natural selection to enhance the survival of the race. 10 m broken rock hill with black glazes, W of Rancho Alegre Road, S of Coyote Trail, W of Hwy 14, S of Santa Fe, New Mexico, tour of 50 photos 1 MB size each via DropBox: Rich Murray 2011.07.28 2011.08.03 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.htm Wednesday, August 3, 2011 [ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/92 [ you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser ] __ [ Note: this long post serves to provide detailed evidence for shared discussions about the effects on ground rocks of very hot, high pressure gas jets from multiple clusters of air bursts of already highly fragmented debris in solar orbit from an initially large mostly ice comet. ]...[much more ]...
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
when someone appears within awareness who needs bread, then responses flow giving bread, not stone -- however, the form of the bread varies greatly, just as the form of the need varies greatly -- what flows from me to others is at worse harmless in outcome, or at best, liberating... if there seem to be mistakes, then the responses always convey spontaneous compassionate blessing -- living within trackless,tract less openness is wonder full... Google nonduality...
RE: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
From Rich: when someone appears within awareness who needs bread, then responses flow giving bread, not stone -- however, the form of the bread varies greatly, just as the form of the need varies greatly -- what flows from me to others is at worse harmless in outcome, or at best, liberating... if there seem to be mistakes, then the responses always convey spontaneous compassionate blessing -- living within trackless,tract less openness is wonder full... Google nonduality... Ah! A good old fashion soliloquy of transcendent proportions! I like it! NonDuality is indeed an interesting perception. Let me share with you a philosophical rant of my own! FWIW, you and I may differ on certain perceptions, such as in regards to the predicted outcome of the on-going Rossi saga. In the end, however, it seems to me that it all comes down to a simple manifestation of different perspectives. It's easy for all of us to lose sight of the fact that as we go about the business of manifesting our differing opinions, all of these differing perspectives must nevertheless be observed from somewhere. Trying to grasp where that somewhere resides has kept many a philosopher employed throughout the ages. Some sense... some try to describe a Transcendent State of Existence, an Awareness which resides outside of the frame of reference perceived of as our immediate surroundings. Thus the concept of duality is born. I think what is often lost in such interpretations is the fact that this Transcendent State of Existence has no definition of boundaries. There is no need for them. The constant enthrallment of Maya - the setting up of boundaries, the generation of differing opinions, is experienced as an endless form of rambunctious creativity, all for the amusement of that Transcendent State of Awareness, where we come from. That Unbounded State of Awareness enjoys the thrill of playing around with differing points of view. In the end, however, all of these differing viewpoints head back home. Eventually we gather around the dinner table to swap stories, to compare notes... and perhaps to experience a good belly laugh or two at our own folly. Actually, we never left the dinner table. It only seems that way. Swami Johnson will now put his turban away for the evening. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
ah, a kindred soul! eloquent, profound, gentle, halarious, keen, subtle... I accept all of your spontaneous power. I let you all the way in, For communication, cooperation, collaboration, communion, union, Asking for help To grow and serve timelessly limitlessly As uniquely all of single creative fractal hyperinfinity On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:18 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From Rich: when someone appears within awareness who needs bread, then responses flow giving bread, not stone -- however, the form of the bread varies greatly, just as the form of the need varies greatly -- what flows from me to others is at worse harmless in outcome, or at best, liberating... if there seem to be mistakes, then the responses always convey spontaneous compassionate blessing -- living within trackless,tract less openness is wonder full... Google nonduality... Ah! A good old fashion soliloquy of transcendent proportions! I like it! NonDuality is indeed an interesting perception. Let me share with you a philosophical rant of my own! FWIW, you and I may differ on certain perceptions, such as in regards to the predicted outcome of the on-going Rossi saga. In the end, however, it seems to me that it all comes down to a simple manifestation of different perspectives. It's easy for all of us to lose sight of the fact that as we go about the business of manifesting our differing opinions, all of these differing perspectives must nevertheless be observed from somewhere. Trying to grasp where that somewhere resides has kept many a philosopher employed throughout the ages. Some sense... some try to describe a Transcendent State of Existence, an Awareness which resides outside of the frame of reference perceived of as our immediate surroundings. Thus the concept of duality is born. I think what is often lost in such interpretations is the fact that this Transcendent State of Existence has no definition of boundaries. There is no need for them. The constant enthrallment of Maya – the setting up of boundaries, the generation of differing opinions, is experienced as an endless form of rambunctious creativity, all for the amusement of that Transcendent State of Awareness, where we come from. That Unbounded State of Awareness enjoys the thrill of playing around with differing points of view. In the end, however, all of these differing viewpoints head back home. Eventually we gather around the dinner table to swap stories, to compare notes... and perhaps to experience a good belly laugh or two at our own folly. Actually, we never left the dinner table. It only seems that way. Swami Johnson will now put his turban away for the evening. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Prof. Sergio Focardi on FaceBook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Prof-Sergio-Focardi/116761995001742
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/02/%E2%80%98dr-sanjay-gupta-reports-the-last-heart-attack%E2%80%99-%E2%80%93-a-mission-possible/ The new one-hour documentary, Dr. Sanjay Gupta Reports: The Last Heart Attack focuses on the latest heart disease prevention science. It debuts Sunday, Aug. 21 at 8:00p.m. ET and PT, and replays on Saturday, Aug. 28 at 8:00p.m. ET and PT on CNN/U.S. Bill Clinton discusses preventing heart disease and strokes with vegan diet (no animal product foods at all, only organic, fairly unprocessed plant-based foods)...
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
From Rich, -- being sincerely wrong is a really profound learning process. Indeed it is. I don't know if Rossi is sincerely wrong about his eCats or not. I don't know if believers of Rossi's claims are also sincerely wrong about their assessments of the claims either. But the same thing can be levied against Rossi's critics. Just keep in mind that being sincerely right about one's personal convictions is no different than later learning that one was sincerely wrong. The key point being: sincerely. I should know. As previously stated, I've had to admit to myself that I really know whose right and who is wrong. Admitting the fact that I don't know strikes me as a far more sincere confession to make under current circumstances. Hopefully we will all learn valuable lessons -- in all due course. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
At 06:30 PM 8/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Let me summarize: I will, too. If your best argument Your is unspecified. Whose best argument? against this data is the assertion that Lewan and I are incapable of transcribing numbers correctly, That's certainly not my argument. Period. or that Levi and the others did not bother to check the published report in NyTekNik to be sure the numbers are right, you have lost this debate. Please stop insulting me with this ridiculous assertion. What assertion? You did not quote it. I think this must have been based on my noting the difference between the numbers. There is a discrepancy, which might have many different origins. That's all. This actually wasn't important, it was dicta, of minor interest only and certainly was not my best argument. Jed, it's like your defense of Rossi against charges *you implied* from Krivit showing the plumber's toolbox. Krivit made no claim that those tools were any kind of suspicious thing. Krivit's just a reporter, some of the time. Those photos were of interest, not because they prove or demonstrate anything about the reality of the E-cat, except to show there is apparently a real plumber working for Rossi, which I find, indeed, interesting. Just irrelevant to judging the claims. To me, it makes Rossi a *tiny bit* more credible! He's paying a plumber, I assume. Or maybe the guy is a volunteer. Frankly, I'm glad to see that Rossi has some help! Jed, you are now taking every comment on the E-cat, it seems, and interpreting it as pro or con. And you are attacking everything you see as con. Here, you took a simple noting of a discrepancy as if it were a criticism, which it was not. It was just a fact. You've become attached to an outcome here. That's what's visible. I highly recommend dropping it. There is a pie flying through the air, very likely to hit Rossi in the face. I suggest ducking. ASAP. Stick with what you *know.* Rossi has set up a situation where many false appearances have been created. He's showing amazing skill at that. We can all be fooled for a time by such a person. I certainly was. I really thought this was likely genuine, at least in round outline (like you!). Yes, there were some obvious problems, but Rossi blah blah blah. Excuses blah blah blah. Justifications blah blah blah. When I was cautioning the CMNS community in February or so, as I recall, it was only against a theoretical possibility, that Rossi would fail to deliver in October, which could easily happen even if his work has a solid basis. That was a foolish promise, it's obvious, but it was not necessary for CMNS researchers to stick their faces where the pie would hit them, too. All they needed was normal, rational, ordinary skepticism, to maintain scientific reserve. To behave like the real scientists that most of them are. You know, if the general scientific community had stuck to that in 1989 et seq, we might be far ahead. It was pseudoskepticism rampant that did so much damage. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. It's looking to me like, in some cases at least, I'm going to be stuck with I told you so. I hope I'm wrong. Seriously, because the world needs energy, it's important. But wishes and hopes are neither horses nor horse-power.
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
At 06:24 PM 8/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Boiler test reports are a set of variables found by long experience to indicate the operating health of a boiler. There is no way to compare this report with a boiler test. Except that the data recorded in a boiler test is EXACTLY what you see here, for crying out loud! Do you think heat from cold fusion works differently from the heat from a gas fired or electrical water heater? You can't measure it with calorimetry? No boiler is designed to create very wet steam as a possibility. Now, the 18-hour test doesn't involve steam. That was the point. But no boiler will be tested with water at a liter per second! And I doubt that a boiler would be tested with the thermometer place in the boiler itself, unless the design had been proven to produce even temperatures within the boiler. Boiler test engineers are working with long-proven designs that have known operating characteristics. Steam systems typically recycle the water, it's recirculated, and there is no input water, beyond a small amount to replace losses, typically from venting as needed. My own boiler does not automatically feed water, you have to press a button, to restore level as indicated on a water level glass. You would *never* want overflow, i.e, water flowing in faster than is being boiled, except transiently to restore the level. My guess is that they don't do this automatically with my boiler because if somehow it stuck on, it could make a big problem! You have to hold the button down as the water feeds. It's set up to be fail-safe. Of course you can measure heat with calorimetry, but there are several problems with the 18-hour test. In the end, it depends on the credibility of Rossi, because unless Rossi can be trusted not to manipulate the appearances, there is no test. Rossi has shown great skill at creating appearances. They called it magic in the RAI TV report. That was accurate. Rossi has set up conditions whereby any definitive demo *must* exclude his ability to manipulate it. He could watch, remote from the device, to ensure that nobody opens the thing up. That's about it.
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
At 06:21 PM 8/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: This is a science forum, not a courtroom. Yes. Frankly, it is damned insulting to suggest that I would lie about these numbers, or that Lewan and are incapable of transcribing tape recorded conversations (what he did), copying numbers out of e-mail, or double-checking figures. If you don't want to believe Levi that's fine but don't blame us for reporting what he and the other said. Jed, nobody said or suggested that you lied. I have never seen you lie, in the years we have corresponded and discussed issues. Nobody blamed you for reporting what you heard or read.
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: No boiler is designed to create very wet steam as a possibility. Now, the 18-hour test doesn't involve steam. That was the point. But no boiler will be tested with water at a liter per second! That is incorrect. A large boiler will be tested at 1 L per second or more. Rossi's upcoming 1 MW test will have to employ even higher flow rates. This rate was perhaps a little high for a 16 kW reactor, because it meant the temperature difference was only ~5°C. I think a difference of 10°C to 15°C would be better. However, 1 L/s turned out to be a wise choice. Levi reported in NyTeknik that power rose to ~130 kW for a while, with the outlet temperature reaching 40°C. At a lower flow rate this might have caused a serious accident. And I doubt that a boiler would be tested with the thermometer place in the boiler itself, unless the design had been proven to produce even temperatures within the boiler. The thermometers were not placed in the Rossi boiler itself. They were placed just outside it, which is where they are placed in a regular boiler test, in the boiler rooms I have seen. They usually use bimetallic dial thermometers. At these temperature differences and flow rates there is no way heat might have wicked directly to the temperature sensors. Boiler test engineers are working with long-proven designs that have known operating characteristics. That has no bearing on calorimetry. When the same stable temperatures and flow rates are observed with a mysterious black box, you can be certain that box is producing heat at the same rate as a conventional boiler. The laws of physics are uniform. Steam systems typically recycle the water, it's recirculated, and there is no input water . . . All industrial boilers produce hot water or process steam which is consumed by the industrial process. There would be no point to circulating the steam as such. Perhaps if it were used for space heating you might do that. It may be condensed and reused, but that would be no different from using any other feedwater source. Except that it tends to be filthy, in my experience. . . . beyond a small amount to replace losses, typically from venting as needed. My own boiler does not automatically feed water, you have to press a button, to restore level as indicated on a water level glass. This must refer to a space heating application. You would *never* want overflow, i.e, water flowing in faster than is being boiled, except transiently to restore the level. This has no bearing on the 18-hour flowing water test. That was a test of a water heat. Of course the water overflows with a hot water heater. It is used up, in the bath, washing machine or whatever the water is used for. Of course you can measure heat with calorimetry, but there are several problems with the 18-hour test. No, there are not. It was the same as any boiler test, and there are no problems with such tests. The problems discussed here are imaginary. The only problem is that it was not reported in quite enough detail. I asked them again to tell me the make and model of the flowmeter. If they provide this information I will update the LENR-CANR news section with this information. I will grant, it would have been better for them to record time sequenced data with a computer or in a lab notebook, but a single value is acceptable. In the end, it depends on the credibility of Rossi, because unless Rossi can be trusted not to manipulate the appearances, there is no test. Of course it depends on them. Any experiment does. And it could be completely fake. This was a simple test, but they could easily dummy up a sophisticated fake test, complete with data and photos. Anyone can produce an impressive set of graphs with totally fake calorimetric data from a nonexistent test. I have done that using the random number generator in a spreadsheet. (I did it to show a researcher what kind of graph I thought would be helpful in an upcoming study.) Rossi has shown great skill at creating appearances. On the contrary, Rossi would make the world's worst con-man. He has shown incredible skill at taking what should be self-evident, unquestionably believable test data and making it seem suspicious. It is as if he goes out of his way to make himself seem like an inept crook. I do not think he does this deliberately, as Abd and others have speculated. Note that this speculation contradicts the message I am responding to here. Which is it? Is Rossi good at making convincing data? Or is he trying to throw people off his trail by making the whole thing look fake? I say: neither. He just happens to be bad at doing demonstrations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Well, Jed, maybe you're right at the cusp of a complete switch of your gestalt of understandings re the Rossi phenomenon -- a little more likely when waking up in the morning, you notice your entire system of interpretations has irrevocably reversed, like a 3D shift in the way a wire cube seems to face -- can't be forced or rushed -- just happens -- like remembering a name a few minutes after choosing to stop trying to recall it...
[Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I do not think that any of the arguments against Rossi have merit, especially not the ones that attempt to disprove the 18-hour flowing water test. What test? What exactly was done, what data was generated? The data provided can be found here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm This data is similar to what you find on a boiler test form, filled in by an inspector. It is no less detailed than that. No sensible person would suggest that such tests are inadequate, or that there is some reason why they might be wrong. They are, of course, imprecise. As it says on the guides to these forms, the results are plus or minus 10%. If those tests did not work, in every major city dozens of boilers would explode every day. That does not happen. We have seen how the public demonstrations turned out to have hidden problems . . . No, we have not. All of the hidden problems are figments of the overworked imaginations of people who have never done such tests, and who do not know what they are talking about. Any HVAC engineer will know that this test is valid, and that all of the objections to it raised here are nonsense. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Oh! So the 18 hour test did not involve phase change, no steam! This is surely amusing since one can hardly falsify that so easily with people that are used to the usual tiny LENR effects. HAHA! This is certaily AMAZING! So, if this is a scam, well, it is a HUGE ONE. Now, Rossi really did convince that he has something HUGE, for good or for bad, and he will not be forgotten that easily!
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
From Jed: What test? What exactly was done, what data was generated? The data provided can be found here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm Jed, I realize it is probably redundant of me to express the following but could you point readers to the specific article(s) you believe make your point. Your news link: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm has a lot of entries. It might help to be more specific as to which installment is most relevant to the point you are making. Is it the 18-hour demonstration? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm has a lot of entries. It might help to be more specific as to which installment is most relevant to the point you are making. Is it the 18-hour demonstration? Yup. Let me put a link to it: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#Rossi18HourTest (You may need to reload the page to see this on the menu.) I keep thinking I am going to establish a Rossi-Defkalion page, but like everyone else, I am waiting for better data. I am sure I have made it clear that I am not satisfied with the level of reporting from Levi, Rossi and the others. On the other hand, as I said, the brief report they made in NyTeknik and to me is roughly as detailed as boiler test form. The only thing missing is the type of flowmeter. Note that a boiler test report includes a great deal of other information and other procedures, such as tests of the thermostats and starters. When I say these reports have only as much data as the 18-hour test, I mean the section devoted to calorimetry. The information presented in a boiler test is not typically parsed out the way the 18-hour test is presented. It is the same information, but expressed in a different way, with different units (BTUs etc.) Essentially, what they do is compare the measured temperature values for a given flow rate against the manufacture's specifications, to confirm it is producing as much hot water or steam as expected. The basic method of measuring flow, inlet and outlet temperatures is the same. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
It does strike me as just a tad obsessive to meticulously focus on Rossi's Chiwawa and Shetland Pony demonstrations, which were nothing more than trade shows - and then treat them as if they were valid scientific experiments. No wonder skeptics have found fault with them. Certainly, we would all love to see more rigorous experimental tests performed for which we in the Peanut Gallery would get our hands on. Jed has sed this, and so has Abd. No one disputes this. However, Rossi has a different perspective on the matter, and there isn't much we can do about it except complain and/or find fault with Rossi's occasional carnival-like behavior. Regarding on-going criticism, I'm am sometimes left speculating that certain skeptics may have deliberately chosen to retaliate by trying to goad Rossi into revealing more of his eCat secrets - by implying this or that about his work. Who knows. I dunno. I still suspect there probably is something genuine going on here. Maybe even enuf to commercialize. I'm just not convinced that everything will be revealed to everyone's satisfaction when October rolls by. On that point, I'm still willing to cut Rossi additional slack if there is sufficient evidence to suggest the fact that he's on to something. The fact that two universities seem to think there is something to Rossi's claims gives me hope. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
The data provided can be found here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm This data is similar to what you find on a boiler test form, filled in by an inspector. Dear Jed! Following your link I read: A source close to the test gave Jed Rothwell the following figures. How would you call that? Don’t be upset, but I would call that: „an unpublished report of data of an anonymous source on a private webpage“. Don’t you agree? Why is it possible, that the (IMHO) most interesting test of the wondrous device remains undocumented? Why are Rossi and Levi hiding the notebook-files? Would you buy a conventional boiler according to such a source? Angela -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Angela Kemmler angela.kemm...@gmx.de wrote: A source close to the test gave Jed Rothwell the following figures. How would you call that? Don’t be upset, but I would call that: „an unpublished report of data of an anonymous source on a private webpage“. Don’t you agree? Call it anything you like. The data was reviewed by Rossi on his webpage and it was also published in NyTeknik. It is obvious that Rossi, Levi and the others have seen the NyTeknik article and also LENR-CANR.org. They would have told Lewan and I if our accounts were incorrect. They may be lying, but there is no chance that my numbers are not what they reported. Why is it possible, that the (IMHO) most interesting test of the wondrous device remains undocumented? Why are Rossi and Levi hiding the notebook-files? The make and model of the flowmeter. I asked them several times and they ignored me. There is probably other germane information in their notebooks. They are not hiding it exactly; they are simply ignoring requests for information. Many professors do that. Generally speaking, getting information out of academic researchers is like pulling teeth. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
I wrote: Why are Rossi and Levi hiding the notebook-files? The make and model of the flowmeter. I asked them several times and they ignored me. I thought that said WHAT are Rossi and Levi hiding . . . The answer is: they are hiding the type of flowmeter. As to WHY they are hiding it I am pretty sure that is the same reason most professors hide stuff. Have you ever looked for something in a professor's lab? You will find it under a pile of papers, books, sample materials, dirty dishes and unfinished sandwiches. Professors will promise to send me a paper, and then I remind them months later, and again months later, and it drags on for years. They take on an assignment and they finish it 6 months to never after the due date. If I had known that professors tend to be this way when I was in college, I might have felt differently about deadlines. Then again it might have taken me 20 years to graduate on their timetables. For the record, Edison was even messier than your average professor. Ed Storms reports that when go-getter know-it-all directors come to National Laboratories from private industry or corporate front offices, they look around at the chaos and broken equipment and say: This place is a pigsty! I want this stuff cleaned up. Throw away that 20-year old equipment! So they clean up, and progress comes to a half for the next several years, since researchers can no longer scrounge or salvage old parts for experiments. There is a good reason why hands-on experimental researchers keep all that junk around. Also, something that apparently did not occur to Krivit is that when you are assembling plumbing, you need plumbing tools. It makes no difference whether the plumbing in for your kitchen sink, an eCat, a Tokamak reactor or the Fukushima nuclear reactor. Plumbing is plumbing and it calls for pipe wrenches. What else? Most of an experimental apparatus is made of ordinary stuff. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
At 01:47 PM 8/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: The data provided can be found here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htmhttp://lenr-canr.org/News.htm Who wrote that? Whose testimony is it? This data is similar to what you find on a boiler test form, filled in by an inspector. The inspector signs the form and is legally responsible for having actually made the recorded measurements. It is no less detailed than that. No sensible person would suggest that such tests are inadequate, or that there is some reason why they might be wrong. They are, of course, imprecise. As it says on the guides to these forms, the results are plus or minus 10%. If those tests did not work, in every major city dozens of boilers would explode every day. That does not happen. The described test isn't the same as the tests that work. We have seen how the public demonstrations turned out to have hidden problems . . . No, we have not. All of the hidden problems are figments of the overworked imaginations of people who have never done such tests, and who do not know what they are talking about. You are nuts, Jed. Sorry. You really are in denial about this, and I don't know why. Experts are commenting, and Kullander and Essen are quietly backing away. Any HVAC engineer will know that this test is valid, and that all of the objections to it raised here are nonsense. Great. Get one to sign off on it, taking personal responsibility for error. However, the reactor isn't anything like what they have seen. In particular, it appears to me that the reactor is designed and operated very differently from a standard boiler. This, indeed, fooled many people. Normal boilers produce wet steam, all right, but down around 5% wet. So nobody expected that steam might be, say, 95% water by mass. That's because nobody would ever design a boiler where the water can spill out into the steam exhaust. Nobody would ever have a fixed inflow rate. No engineer has experience with that, because it would create a host of problems. No, level control is used. In the Rossi experiments, it could easily be managed, it seems to me, with gravity feed. Jed, we don't have the data on the 18-hour test to criticize it clearly. Sure, it looks good, but it raises a host of questions. Like what 130 kW would do to the reactor. None of that is conclusive, maybe, maybe, maybe. Aside from that, what's been appearing is enough to consider substantial the risk that Rossi has manipulated *any demonstration* by changing parameters and not disclosing that. I wrote long ago that fraud can never be ruled out. Jed, you pooh-poohed this, claiming that the existing demonstrations were so conclusive that fraud could not be ruled out. Yet that conclusiveness vanished. Without any need for a fraud claim. However, there remains an appearance of some excess heat, for example in the Kullander and Essen test, where it is claimed that the temperature rose higher than the input power could manage. And, indeed, so it appears. That's an appearance of about 600 W of power. Once we realize that Rossi could have rather easily created that appearance through manipulation, that manipulation was actually observed but not noticed at first, it's seen in the videos, all bets are off. In spite of your well-advised caution about not going to the demonstrations without your own equipment, not going if you are not allowed to arrange a conclusive demonstration, you've still been snookered. Along with a lot of other people. This thing was good! I do think Rossi did this deliberately. And I still can't tell if he's got *anything*. Probably something, at least some of the time. It's an old cold fusion story. Reliability is the biggest problem in cold fusion.
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: The data provided can be found here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm**http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm Who wrote that? Whose testimony is it? I wrote it! Who do you think? I talked to the people there and I wrote it. If you don't like my version read Levi's: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece This data is similar to what you find on a boiler test form, filled in by an inspector. The inspector signs the form and is legally responsible for having actually made the recorded measurements. Oh please. Levi's by-line is in the NyTekNik article. Take it or leave it. Cut the legalese. You are nuts, Jed. Sorry. You really are in denial about this, and I don't know why. Experts are commenting, and Kullander and Essen are quietly backing away. They are not. Where did you hear that nonsense? In particular, it appears to me that the reactor is designed and operated very differently from a standard boiler. This, indeed, fooled many people. Normal boilers produce wet steam, all right, but down around 5% wet. So nobody expected that steam might be, say, 95% water by mass. I am talking the 18-hour flowing water test. That's what it says in the heading of this thread. Forget about steam. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
At 02:10 PM 8/3/2011, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm has a lot of entries. It might help to be more specific as to which installment is most relevant to the point you are making. Is it the 18-hour demonstration? In context, it would be. Much of that is interpretation, by an unknown interpreter (Rothwell?). I now notice that the information was provided by a source close to the test who gave the information to Jed Rothwell. Here is the actual information, with interpretation stripped out. Precise information about some aspects is missing. If this test was intended to answer objections about the January 14 test, it's very odd that far less data was made available than for the January test. On February 10 and 11, 2011, Levi et al. (U. Bologna) performed another test of the Rossi device. These are approximations: Duration of test: 18 hours Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = ~833 ml/s. Cooling water input temperature: 15°C Cooling water output temperature: ~20°C Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W for 6 hours Conclusion (written by Jed?): The temperature difference of 5°C * 833 ml = 4,165 calories/second = 17,493 W. Observers estimated average power as 16 kW. A 5°C temperature difference can easily be measured with confidence. The Nyteknik report has 1 liter/second. There is no actual record of input power correlated with temperature. No record of temperature over time. No record of actual continuous flow. (It's been claimed that a water meter was used, that's a *very* high flow rate.) If this were designed as a more conclusive test, they badly screwed up by using such a high flow, producing only 5 C temperature rise. Sure 5 C can be measured with confidence, if the same thermometer is used, probably within about 0.2 degree. But a temperature difference that small could be produced by thermometer placement. If that rise was produced with the high flow rate and only 20 W of input power, this source of artifact seems unlikely to me. But maybe, depending on internal details that we don't know. This is far from a conclusive demonstration, the largest problem being the paucity of information. We don't have enough information about the public demos or tests monitored by clearly independent observers (such as Kullander and Essen, Mats Lewan, and Steve Krivit), this one is worse. My biggest problem with the 18-hour test is fitting the behavior together with the other demonstrations and what else we know about the claims. The E-cat would be completely out of control. It's operating self-sustained, effectively, or very, very close to the edge. Consider the 130 KW excursion that was reported (in the Nyteknik report on this). This has to be above self-sustaining temperature, and the cooling is already absolutely the most they could manage. Why didn't this thing run away? Actually, it looks like it did. What stopped it? The test depends entirely upon the reliability of those who ran it. What we'd expect from independent observers is *data*. Boiler test reports are a set of variables found by long experience to indicate the operating health of a boiler. There is no way to compare this report with a boiler test. Looks to me, from data found elsewhere, this thing nearly exploded. In fact, the wonder is that it didn't. If the data is real, not manipulated. Rossi's unreliability, excused as his eccentricity, is devastating.
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
I wrote: Oh please. Levi's by-line is in the NyTekNik article. Take it or leave it. Cut the legalese. I mean to say it is not his by-line; it is by Lewan, but it is ridiculous to doubt it. Levi would have objected if he had been misquoted. This legalistic speculation that the data in NyTekNik or LENR-CANR.org is not what was reported by Levi et al. to us is outrageous. Of course it is what they reported! Make of these results what you will. Go ahead and invent absurd fairy tales about how there might be 1000 times less heat than the laws of nature prove it is. But please stop the nonsensical assertions that Lewan and I are incapable of writing down numbers that people tell us! This is a science forum, not a courtroom. Frankly, it is damned insulting to suggest that I would lie about these numbers, or that Lewan and are incapable of transcribing tape recorded conversations (what he did), copying numbers out of e-mail, or double-checking figures. If you don't want to believe Levi that's fine but don't blame us for reporting what he and the other said. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Boiler test reports are a set of variables found by long experience to indicate the operating health of a boiler. There is no way to compare this report with a boiler test. Except that the data recorded in a boiler test is EXACTLY what you see here, for crying out loud! Do you think heat from cold fusion works differently from the heat from a gas fired or electrical water heater? You can't measure it with calorimetry? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Let me summarize: If your best argument against this data is the assertion that Lewan and I are incapable of transcribing numbers correctly, or that Levi and the others did not bother to check the published report in NyTekNik to be sure the numbers are right, you have lost this debate. Please stop insulting me with this ridiculous assertion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Thanks, Abd, for being so forthright with Jed about his inability to integrate all the bad news about the Rossi debacle -- I'm interested to see how the remaining publicly committed believers are attempting to tough it out together, defiantly clinging to every tattered shred of argument -- being sincerely wrong is a really profound learning process -- I wonder if there is any evidence that the investors are losing faith... I'm paying very little attention to any of the cold fusion stuff now, assessing that nothing yet is independently reproducible to refute the null hypothesis of no anomalies... In mutual service, Rich
