Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Jed you are a good historian too...in which extent was the airplane patented? It was patented in 1906. The legal battles over the patent exhausted Wilbur Wright and contributed to his death in 1912 at age 45. See: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Wright_Bros/Patent_Battles/WR12.htm http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/WrightUSPatent/WrightPatent.html The patent covers only the control system, not the motor or propellers. The propellers were the most difficult component to engineer. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Thank you, complex issue! Difficult to find valid analogies with the present case- that is developing step by step. On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Jed you are a good historian too...in which extent was the airplane patented? It was patented in 1906. The legal battles over the patent exhausted Wilbur Wright and contributed to his death in 1912 at age 45. See: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Wright_Bros/Patent_Battles/WR12.htm http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/WrightUSPatent/WrightPatent.html The patent covers only the control system, not the motor or propellers. The propellers were the most difficult component to engineer. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: If conducting paths start to open up within the cell from the heater electric power input, they will evolved and expand complexly. The H2 that Rossi thinks is being absorbed into the Ni nanopowder may in part be leaking into the coolant water output . . . That is completely out of the question. There are no leaks. There is no measurable change in H2 pressure. Even if all of hydrogen leaked out and burned it would contribute 14 kJ, and of course they would see it had leaked out. In my opinion, that is the kind of skeptical hypothesis that does not need to be addressed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Rich Murray to little, vortex-l, michael, Rich, Sterling 8:12 AM (1 hour ago) Well, Horace, there were a series of spikes on the input electric power record in Test 1 on Dec. 16. And in Test 2 on Jan. 14, a catastrophic welding failure on a heating resister... In science, experimenters largely find only what they make an effort to find. Leaks and resulting shorts could be small and transient, and still unleash complex effects in H2 at 80 bar and 100's of degrees C. We need to know the exact voltages and currents used for heating, and also for any thermocouples and pressure transducers inside the cell, and the quality of the power production and measuring devices. Note that data recording failed for Test 2... And today, feedback that the output power may be only 1.6 kw, not over 10 kw... Rossi has mentioned explosions several times, without giving details, contributing to the risk run by independent experimenters who attempt replications. I want to be wrong, but all doubts have to be candidly explored in this very important scientific debate, in which Rossi at least could share critical details with some independent scientists of repute who can be trusted with secrets. I respect your urbane good sense and experience. Rich On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: . - Hide quoted text - This kind of irrational debunking is laughable. The one thing done well in the experiment was measuring the input. You don't think a short would show up on a power meter, or even just a current meter, or even blow a fuse? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: ... That is completely out of the question. There are no leaks. There is no measurable change in H2 pressure. Even if all of hydrogen leaked out and burned it would contribute 14 kJ, and of course they would see it had leaked out. In my opinion, that is the kind of skeptical hypothesis that does not need to be addressed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
At 08:00 AM 2/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rich Murray mailto:rmfor...@gmail.comrmfor...@gmail.com wrote: If conducting paths start to open up within the cell from the heater electric power input, they will evolved and expand complexly. The H2 that Rossi thinks is being absorbed into the Ni nanopowder may in part be leaking into the coolant water output . . . That is completely out of the question. There are no leaks. There is no measurable change in H2 pressure. Even if all of hydrogen leaked out and burned it would contribute 14 kJ, and of course they would see it had leaked out. In my opinion, that is the kind of skeptical hypothesis that does not need to be addressed. Sure. I responded here out of concern for Murray. The explanation is preposterous because there is far too little hydrogen being introduced. Unless, of course, that's faked, i.e., a lot more hydrogen is introduced. There would have to be an oxygen input, but that could come from ambient air. And once we consider the possibility of fraud, as we must in this case, the refutation of that hypothesis is independent replication, and probably some multiplicity in this, depending on details. Fraud is not a specific hypothesis as to the mechanism of the fraud. For a convincing demonstration of a Black Box device, rigorous and independent monitoring of all possible inputs and outputs is necessary. I've never seen an inventor making claims like Rossi allow that, and then still have visible *major* excess power, beyond chemical storage possibility. I think these public demonstrations are a waste of time and effort, they will convince only those who are ready to be convinced, those inclined to trust someone based on? Appearances? By appearances, this thing sucks big time! Reputation? Whose reputation? Very bright people, experts, can be fooled, by something that they just didn't expect and check for. Happens all the time! And the experts who witnessed that demonstration are queasy about it, particularly Celani. What did Rossi hope to accomplish by the demonstration? My suspicion is, he got exactly what he wanted. Lots of publicity, and by attending the demonstration, all those experts facilitated that If I were an investor, I'd insist on full disclosure of adequate details for reproduction, to me, under a non-disclosure agreement, and I'd pay an expert of my choice to review those, and if the report were possible, even if unlikely were appended, I'd enter into a contract with Rossi that gave me an investment option, and I'd arrange for independent replication under my control. I'd allow Rossi to make all kinds of suggestions, but not to touch the device, nor would I allow anyone affiliated with Rossi to get anywhere near it. It's also possible that the first step,before that, would be an independent examination and operation of a device supplied by Rossi, and he'd be paid for that device. And if it turned out that Rossi had lied in the disclosures, I'd demand the payment back, and the lying would void the non-disclosure agreeement -- a non-disclosure agreement that allowed fraud would be contrary to public policy, I believe, doesn't matter what it says! I'd understand that I might not get my early investment back. Investors inclined to risky investments expect to lose money on most ideas, they are playing for the big one. Rossi claims, though, that only he knows the secrets of the device. Am I correct about that?
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Rossi has posted that the secret is protected against loss or suppression... I haven't been focused only on large amounts of H2 being leaked, as a tiny leak could still wreck havok at 80 bar and 100s of degrees C, for hours, days, weeks, months... On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 08:00 AM 2/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rich Murray mailto:rmfor...@gmail.comrmfor...@gmail.com wrote: If conducting paths start to open up within the cell from the heater electric power input, they will evolved and expand complexly. The H2 that Rossi thinks is being absorbed into the Ni nanopowder may in part be leaking into the coolant water output . . . That is completely out of the question. There are no leaks. There is no measurable change in H2 pressure. Even if all of hydrogen leaked out and burned it would contribute 14 kJ, and of course they would see it had leaked out. In my opinion, that is the kind of skeptical hypothesis that does not need to be addressed. Sure. I responded here out of concern for Murray. The explanation is preposterous because there is far too little hydrogen being introduced. Unless, of course, that's faked, i.e., a lot more hydrogen is introduced. There would have to be an oxygen input, but that could come from ambient air. And once we consider the possibility of fraud, as we must in this case, the refutation of that hypothesis is independent replication, and probably some multiplicity in this, depending on details. Fraud is not a specific hypothesis as to the mechanism of the fraud. For a convincing demonstration of a Black Box device, rigorous and independent monitoring of all possible inputs and outputs is necessary. I've never seen an inventor making claims like Rossi allow that, and then still have visible *major* excess power, beyond chemical storage possibility. I think these public demonstrations are a waste of time and effort, they will convince only those who are ready to be convinced, those inclined to trust someone based on? Appearances? By appearances, this thing sucks big time! Reputation? Whose reputation? Very bright people, experts, can be fooled, by something that they just didn't expect and check for. Happens all the time! And the experts who witnessed that demonstration are queasy about it, particularly Celani. What did Rossi hope to accomplish by the demonstration? My suspicion is, he got exactly what he wanted. Lots of publicity, and by attending the demonstration, all those experts facilitated that If I were an investor, I'd insist on full disclosure of adequate details for reproduction, to me, under a non-disclosure agreement, and I'd pay an expert of my choice to review those, and if the report were possible, even if unlikely were appended, I'd enter into a contract with Rossi that gave me an investment option, and I'd arrange for independent replication under my control. I'd allow Rossi to make all kinds of suggestions, but not to touch the device, nor would I allow anyone affiliated with Rossi to get anywhere near it. It's also possible that the first step,before that, would be an independent examination and operation of a device supplied by Rossi, and he'd be paid for that device. And if it turned out that Rossi had lied in the disclosures, I'd demand the payment back, and the lying would void the non-disclosure agreeement -- a non-disclosure agreement that allowed fraud would be contrary to public policy, I believe, doesn't matter what it says! I'd understand that I might not get my early investment back. Investors inclined to risky investments expect to lose money on most ideas, they are playing for the big one. Rossi claims, though, that only he knows the secrets of the device. Am I correct about that?
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
At 12:09 PM 2/7/2011, Rich Murray wrote: I want to be wrong, but all doubts have to be candidly explored in this very important scientific debate, in which Rossi at least could share critical details with some independent scientists of repute who can be trusted with secrets. There is no scientific debate yet. There is a staged demonstration, under the control of Rossi, with experimental details concealed, purporting to show substantial energy generation, enough that the only likely explanations, from the observers, become fraud and Wow! Rossi clearly wants to pursue the path of secret development. That's his privilege. He's been otherwise advised, by people who should know, such as Rothwell. Discussing this at this point, as if there were a serious scientific debate, is like discussing if a magician really can pull a rabbit out of a hat. Well, yes, he can. Or make it appear so. Some people may want to debate if there might be a possible real effect involved, i.e., *any LENR.* From the whole cold fusion debacle, we should know that just because something seems theoretically impossible, experimental evidence can't be discarded on that basis. Rather, if reputable researchers report an effect, the norm is to accept that their report is honest, and then, if the implications are great, to look for -- and perform, if possible, according to the individual choices of researchers or research groups -- independent replications before jumping the shark over it. There are a million ways that there could be artifact, with any experiment. Without an experimental protocol to replicate, we can't even begin to assess them. Bottom line, Rich, simmer down. Many of us have suggested how Rossi could open this up. He either is a fraud, or he doesn't trust anyone, and just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you. Barring some unexpected event, we'll just have to wait, love don't come easy, it's a game of give and take.
RE: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Abd... I think you haven't been following this as closely as the active contributors... Perhaps your time is limited and you have not been able to read all the postings... What did Rossi hope to accomplish by the demonstration? My suspicion is, he got exactly what he wanted. Lots of publicity, and by attending the demonstration, all those experts facilitated that Rossi has stated that he did NOT want to do the demo; that was Focardi's idea. If he wanted publicity, he would have been much more active at public venues such as scientific/engineering/energy conferences. Compared to most others with novel ideas/research, he has been keeping a pretty low profile until this demo. By appearances, this thing sucks big time! My impression to date is that most of the contributors on vortex think that the Jan demo was the most important (can't quite say 'convincing') demo ***SO FAR*** for any kind of LENR/Mills process. Yes, the concensus is also that it could have been done better (i.e., easily made 'irrefutable'). However, the apparent energy gain has been far greater, for a demonstrable time, and more or less on demand, than any previous LENR/Mills reported results. And the non-public test in Dec had even more interesting results when input power was shut off completely... So your statement that it 'sucks big time' means that all other LENR results suck even bigger... Yet, you are convinced that those results prove that something is going on! You also seem to be unaware of the statement from Rossi himself, that he has funded this out of his own pocket. So doing the demo to attract investors is quite unlikely... In fact, that's why he was very RELUCTANT to even do a demo. He knew that it was still somewhat 'tempermental', and a botched demo could cause serious delays in getting the 1MW plant online -- which is his ONLY focus right now. He is an engineer first, and in his mind, the best way to PROVE this works is to get an operating plant online; to win in the marketplace. That is the only thing that he can use as a 'trump card' against the skeptical scientists that, all too easily, fall back on (hot fusion) theory to refute his claims... He wants to boil some water to make Garwin some tea! -Mark -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 9:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration At 08:00 AM 2/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rich Murray mailto:rmfor...@gmail.comrmfor...@gmail.com wrote: If conducting paths start to open up within the cell from the heater electric power input, they will evolved and expand complexly. The H2 that Rossi thinks is being absorbed into the Ni nanopowder may in part be leaking into the coolant water output . . . That is completely out of the question. There are no leaks. There is no measurable change in H2 pressure. Even if all of hydrogen leaked out and burned it would contribute 14 kJ, and of course they would see it had leaked out. In my opinion, that is the kind of skeptical hypothesis that does not need to be addressed. Sure. I responded here out of concern for Murray. The explanation is preposterous because there is far too little hydrogen being introduced. Unless, of course, that's faked, i.e., a lot more hydrogen is introduced. There would have to be an oxygen input, but that could come from ambient air. And once we consider the possibility of fraud, as we must in this case, the refutation of that hypothesis is independent replication, and probably some multiplicity in this, depending on details. Fraud is not a specific hypothesis as to the mechanism of the fraud. For a convincing demonstration of a Black Box device, rigorous and independent monitoring of all possible inputs and outputs is necessary. I've never seen an inventor making claims like Rossi allow that, and then still have visible *major* excess power, beyond chemical storage possibility. I think these public demonstrations are a waste of time and effort, they will convince only those who are ready to be convinced, those inclined to trust someone based on? Appearances? By appearances, this thing sucks big time! Reputation? Whose reputation? Very bright people, experts, can be fooled, by something that they just didn't expect and check for. Happens all the time! And the experts who witnessed that demonstration are queasy about it, particularly Celani. What did Rossi hope to accomplish by the demonstration? My suspicion is, he got exactly what he wanted. Lots of publicity, and by attending the demonstration, all those experts facilitated that If I were an investor, I'd insist on full disclosure of adequate details for reproduction, to me, under a non-disclosure agreement, and I'd pay an expert of my choice to review those, and if the report were possible, even if unlikely were appended, I'd enter into a contract with Rossi
RE: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Abd: You really need to be more careful with your choice of words... There is a staged demonstration, under the control of Rossi, with experimental details concealed... No, there were at least two tests done with the same seasoned university scientists present. No, it was not a 'staged' demo... And Rossi had very limited control. From everything that I've read, which is considerable, Rossi brought in the reactor but it was the Univ of Bologna scientists that set it up and brought in THEIR OWN instruments and hooked them up THEMSELVES. Also, as mentioned several times so far, those same scientists looked for all possible ways to bring in other power sources, and the reactor was even ELEVATED off the surface of the table so one could see ALL connections to the reactor. Maybe that's what you call a 'staged' demo, but I think that's clearly an exaggeration. No, all experimental details were NOT concealed... There were a few, yes, but only those that were of a proprietary nature, and then, according to Rossi, only until patents are granted. -Mark -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration At 12:09 PM 2/7/2011, Rich Murray wrote: I want to be wrong, but all doubts have to be candidly explored in this very important scientific debate, in which Rossi at least could share critical details with some independent scientists of repute who can be trusted with secrets. There is no scientific debate yet. There is a staged demonstration, under the control of Rossi, with experimental details concealed, purporting to show substantial energy generation, enough that the only likely explanations, from the observers, become fraud and Wow! Rossi clearly wants to pursue the path of secret development. That's his privilege. He's been otherwise advised, by people who should know, such as Rothwell. Discussing this at this point, as if there were a serious scientific debate, is like discussing if a magician really can pull a rabbit out of a hat. Well, yes, he can. Or make it appear so. Some people may want to debate if there might be a possible real effect involved, i.e., *any LENR.* From the whole cold fusion debacle, we should know that just because something seems theoretically impossible, experimental evidence can't be discarded on that basis. Rather, if reputable researchers report an effect, the norm is to accept that their report is honest, and then, if the implications are great, to look for -- and perform, if possible, according to the individual choices of researchers or research groups -- independent replications before jumping the shark over it. There are a million ways that there could be artifact, with any experiment. Without an experimental protocol to replicate, we can't even begin to assess them. Bottom line, Rich, simmer down. Many of us have suggested how Rossi could open this up. He either is a fraud, or he doesn't trust anyone, and just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you. Barring some unexpected event, we'll just have to wait, love don't come easy, it's a game of give and take.
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I'd allow Rossi to make all kinds of suggestions, but not to touch the device, nor would I allow anyone affiliated with Rossi to get anywhere near it. Such tests have been done, and they are underway now. Rossi is another city. Rossi claims, though, that only he knows the secrets of the device. Am I correct about that? Incorrect. Other people know the secrets. Rossi is a strange fellow but he is better than you think, and his claims are more solid than they appear. It would be a grave mistake to judge his work based on his personal credibility. Someone here remarked that Focardi forced Rossi to do the demo. That's incorrect. Rossi wanted to delay but he is very fond of Focardi, and Focardi asked him to go ahead in January, so he did as a favor. It would have been a better demo if they had rehearsed a few more weeks, but it wasn't all that bad. As I said, it is difficult to do a demo of this nature with so many people in attendance, and with an unpredictable prototype. The fact that the thing did not work and then worked marginally and not as well as it did the day before tells me that it is probably real. This is how cold fusion devices behave. A fake machine would work perfectly. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
At 02:34 PM 2/7/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: Abd... I think you haven't been following this as closely as the active contributors... Perhaps your time is limited and you have not been able to read all the postings... What did Rossi hope to accomplish by the demonstration? My suspicion is, he got exactly what he wanted. Lots of publicity, and by attending the demonstration, all those experts facilitated that Rossi has stated that he did NOT want to do the demo; that was Focardi's idea. Given one of the two major operating hypotheses, I don't accept any statements about this as definitive. If he wanted publicity, he would have been much more active at public venues such as scientific/engineering/energy conferences. Compared to most others with novel ideas/research, he has been keeping a pretty low profile until this demo. Perhaps. It's certainly not a low profile now. He's trying to scale up to production. That takes a lot of money. By appearances, this thing sucks big time! My impression to date is that most of the contributors on vortex think that the Jan demo was the most important (can't quite say 'convincing') demo ***SO FAR*** for any kind of LENR/Mills process. Assuming no fraud, I have no difficulty believing that. By the way, I *have* been following the discussions and reports. Yes, the concensus is also that it could have been done better (i.e., easily made 'irrefutable'). Easily. But an inventor-controlled demonstration, while it could be made more *convincing*, for sure, than the Jan demo, simply cannot take the place of an independent replication, or, short of that, a semi-independent demonstration where full external investigation is possible, and operation beyond a certain time period can be accomplished. However, the apparent energy gain has been far greater, for a demonstrable time, and more or less on demand, than any previous LENR/Mills reported results. Key word: apparent energy gain. Yes. That is why the normal possibility of error or artifact is largely ruled out. This is not marginal. And the non-public test in Dec had even more interesting results when input power was shut off completely... So your statement that it 'sucks big time' means that all other LENR results suck even bigger... Yet, you are convinced that those results prove that something is going on! No. You quoted me out of context, Mark. What I actually wrote was: By appearances, this thing sucks big time! Appearances refers to many details of the demonstration and the associated facts, the secrecy, the little detail with the gamma ray spectrum, the lack of independent confirmation, and a disinterest in arranging the same, and more. I am simply pointing out the obvious. Appearances can be deceiving. That Fleischmann screwed up and reported neutron radiation from his cells was a mistake, and it sucked, as did various other aspects of the situation, the announcement by press conference, the lack of detail, even in the hurried paper that was published, all of which practically guaranteed replication failure (plus a lot that can't be at all blamed on PF, they simply didn't know all of the required conditions). But cold fusion is established by the work of hundreds of independent research groups, and there is a single experiment, replicated widely enough, that proves (as well as proof can be expected for anything like this) that deuterium fusion to helium is taking place, *mechanism unknown.* Within a couple of years, it moved from a postion where extreme skepticism was reasonable, to one where it was not. Very different. Rossi is in the first stage, and without the very substantial reputation of Professors Pons and Fleischmann. Who, by the way, still deserve the Nobel Prize. Freedom from all error or misjudgment is not a requirement. Or shouldn't be! What they did was huge, paving the way for all the rest of LENR research. You also seem to be unaware of the statement from Rossi himself, that he has funded this out of his own pocket. No, I was aware that he has asserted that. Mark, you seem to accept what Rossi says as if it were confirmed fact. That is ordinarily a reasonable assumption. It is not, here. That's unfortunate, perhaps, but this is what happens when one allows the appearances that have been described to arise. This is *not* a claim that Rossi is lying, I have seen no proof of any lies, at all, so far. If Rossi is funding this out of his own pocket, that is, probably, his own foolishness. He's been complaining that he's short of the money he needs, that he's short of time, he's working so hard. To relieve that burden, it would only take ... money. But he's chosen a path that doesn't seek to share this, he apparently wants to own it, though it looks to me like this strategy could radically fail, he's taking huge risks. So doing the demo to attract investors is quite unlikely... In fact, that's why he was
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
On 02/07/2011 10:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I think of Steorn, which is still operating, apparently. One might ask why and how, and I don't think it's rocket science. Steorn has products -- I mean, /real/ products, that you can buy, and which actually do something useful -- which they sell, for real money. They run a scam as a sideline, of course, but none the less there's some actual income there which may help to keep the company going. See, for example: http://www.steorn.com/steornlab/hall-probe/ BLP also has a real product which they sell, which is their molecular modeling software. I have no idea how well it works or who's bought it, but it surely can't hurt to have an actual salable product in the stable when the primary horse still won't run. (And Randy sells his book, of course, but if it sells like just about any other QM book you care to name, I'm quite sure the income from it is insignificant.)
RE: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
At 02:52 PM 2/7/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: Abd: You really need to be more careful with your choice of words... There is a staged demonstration, under the control of Rossi, with experimental details concealed... No, there were at least two tests done with the same seasoned university scientists present. Really? They knew what was inside that device? No, it was not a 'staged' demo... And Rossi had very limited control. From everything that I've read, which is considerable, Rossi brought in the reactor but it was the Univ of Bologna scientists that set it up and brought in THEIR OWN instruments and hooked them up THEMSELVES. I believe I mentioned that my comments weren't accurate if that happened. Also, as mentioned several times so far, those same scientists looked for all possible ways to bring in other power sources, and the reactor was even ELEVATED off the surface of the table so one could see ALL connections to the reactor. Maybe that's what you call a 'staged' demo, but I think that's clearly an exaggeration. To the extent this was true, then my comments were off. There remains the possibility of internal tricks. How about this: why is the device insulated? Could it be that it already contains some very hot material? Geez, that seems like it would be simple! There is no end to possible frauds, which is why, with something of this magnitude, most scientists won't be satisifed until there are independent replications -- and, by the way, 1 MW reactors for sale certainly allows a kind of independent replication No, all experimental details were NOT concealed... There were a few, yes, but only those that were of a proprietary nature, and then, according to Rossi, only until patents are granted. Patents won't be granted, my prediction. Inadequate disclosure. And that, then, gives Rossi the excuse to put off making the 1 MW reactors available I'd love to be wrong. Cheap energy would be wonderful.
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Jed you are a good historian too...in which extent was the airplane patented? The aspects that had been not patented belong to KNOW what, HOW, why. The same situation can be apllied to this new energy source. Interesting developments. On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I'd allow Rossi to make all kinds of suggestions, but not to touch the device, nor would I allow anyone affiliated with Rossi to get anywhere near it. Such tests have been done, and they are underway now. Rossi is another city. Rossi claims, though, that only he knows the secrets of the device. Am I correct about that? Incorrect. Other people know the secrets. Rossi is a strange fellow but he is better than you think, and his claims are more solid than they appear. It would be a grave mistake to judge his work based on his personal credibility. Someone here remarked that Focardi forced Rossi to do the demo. That's incorrect. Rossi wanted to delay but he is very fond of Focardi, and Focardi asked him to go ahead in January, so he did as a favor. It would have been a better demo if they had rehearsed a few more weeks, but it wasn't all that bad. As I said, it is difficult to do a demo of this nature with so many people in attendance, and with an unpredictable prototype. The fact that the thing did not work and then worked marginally and not as well as it did the day before tells me that it is probably real. This is how cold fusion devices behave. A fake machine would work perfectly. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
I meant to say that Rossi is now in a different city. Not that he is a city. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Rossi has stated that he did NOT want to do the demo; that was Focardi's idea. Given one of the two major operating hypotheses, I don't accept any statements about this as definitive. That is definite. As I said, Rossi wanted to delay the demo some more but Focardi asked him to go ahead, and he did, as a favor. I do not know what other motivations he had to do it, whether it was to get publicity, but I know that it was partly as a favor to Focardi. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Reasonable doubts must be addressed, yes, especially if they are original, specific, and suggest possible hazards to people, as is the case with my vision that there may be electrolysis of cooling water via leaks in the cooling tube next to the Ni reactor tube and its heating resistors, if there are also any microleaks into the heater wires -- what is the mass, area, and composition of the wires in the resistors, and the thickness and composition of their insulation? Composition and insulation of the wires to the heater resistors? Voltage and amperage of the heater input power -- any fluctuations? Any pressure fluctuations inside the cell? Has the output temperature water temperature been decisively monitored for hours, days, weeks, months -- any H2 or O2 -- any electric currents or potentials in the output water? Any increase in impurities in the output water over time, compared to the input water? What was the resistor wire welding failure in the Jan. 14 demo? Electrochemical corrosion? Any plans to analyze the Ni powder for tritium, as per TK Sankaranarayanan et al, 1995 -- which took days to load H2 gas into .125 to .380 mm Ni wires 35 to 50 cm long, electrically heated to 200 - 300 C -- about 40 - 500 mg Ni -- H2 pressures about 40 - 340 cm silicone oil -- were there any attempted replications, or searches for deuterium or helium 3 and 4? This may be the best study for amateurs to share attempts to replicate -- the use of pyrex or quartz tubes allows continuous recording of images of a tiny experiment in IR, visible, and UV light, as well as ionizing radiation and neutrons, acoustic signals, and use of CR-39 -- small tubes at various internal pressures could be very thin, while two concentric tubes allow precise real-time heat output studies with water or another transparent liquid or gas through the cooling space -- a standard device could be used by many groups at once, with real-time data and images in public view on the Net, along with modest requests for donations, a public record of all expenses, and a permanent archive of comments. lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Sankaranarevidencefo.pdf 8 pages
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
fromRich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com to h-ni_fus...@yahoogroups.com, regsoft h...@brillouinenergy.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net, Sterling D. Allen sterlin...@pureenergysystems.com, michael barron mhbar...@gmail.com, lit...@earthtech.org, mari...@earthtech.org, puth...@earthtech.org dateSun, Feb 6, 2011 at 1:01 PM subject Re: [H-Ni_Fusion] Re: failures of H-Ni cold fusion tests with water cooling -- possible heat and O2 and H2 release via electrolysis by up to 220 V AC from shorts and deposited metals with danger of shocks and explosions: Rich Murray 2011.02.05 1:01 PM (23 minutes ago) Thanks for frank, terse comments -- I hadn't considered the 80 bar H2 pressure in the Jan. 14 demo -- that could well have stressed the cooling tube, the heater resisters, and the Ni rods, especially with up to 1000 C temperatures -- steam can diffuse against the high temperature and pressure gradients and so enter cracks to electrolyze into H2 and O2 to contribute to complex electrically conducting chemistry, using the plentiful Ni, Cu, Cr, Fe (stainless steel) and other impurity metals, perhaps even carbon and silicon -- who knows without detailed investigations? If conducting paths start to open up within the cell from the heater electric power input, they will evolved and expand complexly. The H2 that Rossi thinks is being absorbed into the Ni nanopowder may in part be leaking into the coolant water output, while in the cell forming complex chemical particles and films, and dissolved compounds (including gases) -- an extremely messy experiment... Rossi hasn't so far provided any details about his explosions... What happens in your brillouinenergy.com experiments? Rich On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 10:40 AM, regsoft h...@brillouinenergy.com wrote: Rich, It is always good to see an unbiased / sincere post on LENR. With such a lengthy ramble I will only respond to your obviously irrelevant concerns over H2O at 0 PSIG leaking into a cell pressurized to over 1000 PSIG with hydrogen. .
