Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released - Angels on a pin
and that water flow calorimetry is required... (heard it too). so there is no way to please them. that is on purpose. exhausting. 2013/5/20 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Debunkers will say water flow calorimetry conceals a trick. Harry On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:31 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.comwrote: There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the big thing here is, why bother? They get a torrent of heat, *easily* shown by IR to be far, far more than any that accepted science can explain away, and you want that last decimal place? The question that was answered is, *is it real*? The answer is binary, two-state, accuracy is not a factor. But I think what you are really saying is that somehow hot water trumps IR, in the gut perhaps. It's not separated from common sense basement engineering by several exponential equations. And I think you are right in this, at least for a portion of the (persuadable) critics. Ol' Bab On 5/20/2013 12:04 PM, Jones Beene wrote: But the main issue - why they did not perform water flow calorimetry? That is a major question that needs to be answered after all of these months. Instead of removing doubts, which they could have done with water flow - they merely added more doubts.
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
it is done. good prediction. 2013/5/21 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Mary Yugo will claim that Rossi alone is doing this, and the scientists are being duped. That can only mean he has a magical ability to change the reading in a clamp-on ammeter, a voltmeter, and an IR camera that is not even touching his cell.
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Mary Yugo is indeed the bravest skeptic- she commented a lot on my blog. Very inspiring mode of thinking. Others (Cude?) have much slower reactions. Peter On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: it is done. good prediction. 2013/5/21 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Mary Yugo will claim that Rossi alone is doing this, and the scientists are being duped. That can only mean he has a magical ability to change the reading in a clamp-on ammeter, a voltmeter, and an IR camera that is not even touching his cell. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Just one question to all the experts around. can you correct my reasoning. I'm not experienced in that domain. The report claim a COP above 5 in one experiments. My goal is to rule-out COP=1 since the measure is done by thermography I think naively that to explain such an error : - one way to be wrong would be to make a temperature error. since power in in T^4, error is 5^1/4, about 1.5, thus +50%/-33%, assuming no convection. - Error on convection alone should be even greater because it grow less than T^4. - Error on emissivity alone should be of 5:1 change between the blank and the loaded run. thus you should have an optimal accumulation of huge temperature error (few ten percent of temp, thus hundreds of degrees), and few units of emissivity change between, and some convection to help the total... moreover the problem have been addressed with some measures (like the black dots) Am I reasoning well ? is COP=1 ruled out ? and from the measures of energy density it seems that even COP=1.1 cannot be chemical. it is the tea kettle the skeptics were asking? of course they are no more satisfied... 2013/5/21 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com Mary Yugo is indeed the bravest skeptic- she commented a lot on my blog. Very inspiring mode of thinking. Others (Cude?) have much slower reactions. Peter On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: it is done. good prediction. 2013/5/21 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Mary Yugo will claim that Rossi alone is doing this, and the scientists are being duped. That can only mean he has a magical ability to change the reading in a clamp-on ammeter, a voltmeter, and an IR camera that is not even touching his cell. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: - one way to be wrong would be to make a temperature error. since power in in T^4, error is 5^1/4, about 1.5, thus +50%/-33%, assuming no convection. Yes, temperature measurement is critical. That is why they checked the surface temperature with a thermocouple to confirm the IR camera is set correctly. In the previous test, they just assumed emissivity is 1, meaning as bad as it can be. It makes no sense to assume no convection. There has to be convection. Also, as you see in Fig. 10, the flange is large and it must be radiating and convecting a lot of heat. They did not try to measure that. On p. 20 they say unaccounted for heat losses were 58 W out of 810 W during the calibration with joule heating. 7%. Actually, that is remarkably good accounting for a system like this. Am I reasoning well ? is COP=1 ruled out ? I think so, but actually even if the COP was exactly 1, that would indicate excess heat. You would not expect it to be better than 0.93 as shown by the 7% loss during calibration. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Haven't commented here in a while, pretty excited that after a couple of years of Rossi's shenanigans it's all perhaps about to happen. But I come from a hard test and measurement background (mechanical and electrical engineer, specialising in thermodynamics) and am by nature quite skeptical, so while compelling I am still not totally satisfied with this demo in Rossi's own facilities using Rossi's own equipment and setup. That is singularly because it relies upon Rossi being honest - something of which I am not totally assured given his history (I thought his Mat Lewans demo looked distinctly dodgy, and some of his others weren't great either). And I can think of a number of ways of cheating to get heat into the reactor: Altering the electrical measurement equipment supplied, fiber optic lasers hidden in cable, two-strand wires inside wired clamped ammeters (no net current), infrared, uv, x-ray, or radio frequency heat sources directed at reactor from afar, delivering combustible fuel into reactor via wires/cables (0.05g/s for 2000W). Probably most of these could be ruled out by the observers present, but as they are associates of Rossi I really don't know if they were looking for such. It would have been a far better approach for Rossi to engage aggressively skeptical testers to do the job. http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm Anyway I look forward to more demos in preferably neutral locations to assuage my concerns. On 21 May 2013 14:44, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: - one way to be wrong would be to make a temperature error. since power in in T^4, error is 5^1/4, about 1.5, thus +50%/-33%, assuming no convection. Yes, temperature measurement is critical. That is why they checked the surface temperature with a thermocouple to confirm the IR camera is set correctly. In the previous test, they just assumed emissivity is 1, meaning as bad as it can be. It makes no sense to assume no convection. There has to be convection. Also, as you see in Fig. 10, the flange is large and it must be radiating and convecting a lot of heat. They did not try to measure that. On p. 20 they say unaccounted for heat losses were 58 W out of 810 W during the calibration with joule heating. 7%. Actually, that is remarkably good accounting for a system like this. Am I reasoning well ? is COP=1 ruled out ? I think so, but actually even if the COP was exactly 1, that would indicate excess heat. You would not expect it to be better than 0.93 as shown by the 7% loss during calibration. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Robert Lynn wrote: And I can think of a number of ways of cheating to get heat into the reactor: Altering the electrical measurement equipment supplied . . . How could this fool a clamp on ammeter and a voltmeter attached directly to the wire? If you know how to fool these instruments you have valuable information. The power companies will pay you for this. , fiber optic lasers hidden in cable . . . I do not think these are capable of conducting 500 W of light, or 800 W when the power is off 65% of the time. Fiber optic laser capacity is measured in microwatts, ranging from 50 nW to 2 mW. , two-strand wires inside wired clamped ammeters (no net current) . . . The ammeters belong to Bologna U., not Rossi. , infrared, uv, x-ray, or radio frequency heat sources directed at reactor from afar . . . Infrared or RF would heat everything, including the equipment stand. They would notice it is incandescent. That would be hard to miss. 500 to 800 W of infrared would burn the observers when they got near the cells. x-rays would have been detected by Bianchini, I believe. , delivering combustible fuel into reactor via wires/cables (0.05g/s for 2000W). The cell is closed. You would have to delver rocket fuel, with oxidizer. When they removed the cell at the end of the test to saw it in half, the observers would have noticed this tube. Probably most of these could be ruled out by the observers present, . . . Yes, I think we can count on the head of the Swedish Skeptics Association to be on the lookout for such things. People who have done experiments for 50 years are pretty good at finding problems with instruments. but as they are associates of Rossi I really don't know if they were looking for such. This seems to be a gigantic game of sardines (reverse hide and go seek -- one person hides and as the others find him they all hide in the same place.) Every time an impartial observer visits a cold fusion experiment he is convinced. That's because cold fusion is real, and the good experiments are completely convincing. Every time this happens people say that they have become associates or co-conspirators with the researchers. Robert Duncan is now regularly attacked as a cold fusion true believer. It would have been a far better approach for Rossi to engage aggressively skeptical testers to do the job. These people are not rational. If you were to engage Mary Yugo she would demand she be allowed to bring her own power supply, which obviously would not work. It would be like showing up in August 1908 for the Wright Brothers demonstration with your own airplane, and demanding they fly your machine instead of their own. The whole point was that other people's flying machines did not fly. Anyway I look forward to more demos in preferably neutral locations to assuage my concerns. I think your concerns are overblown. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Bologna University, Uppsala University and Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm must all have good football teams. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 Press release http://ecat.com/news/3rd-party-report-shows-anomalous-heat-production-the-rossi-effect and direct report download: http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf 29 page report... skimming it, I see a COP: 5.6 +/- 0.8 Congrats to Rossi. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
No football teams in Bologna University. In Italy Universities are focused on academics not sports. Giovanni On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:10 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Bologna University, Uppsala University and Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm must all have good football teams. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 Press release http://ecat.com/news/3rd-party-report-shows-anomalous-heat-production-the-rossi-effect and direct report download: http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf 29 page report... skimming it, I see a COP: 5.6 +/- 0.8 Congrats to Rossi. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Are they going to publish this report in a respected Physics Journal? Which one exactly? Giovanni On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:10 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Bologna University, Uppsala University and Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm must all have good football teams. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 Press release http://ecat.com/news/3rd-party-report-shows-anomalous-heat-production-the-rossi-effect and direct report download: http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf 29 page report... skimming it, I see a COP: 5.6 +/- 0.8 Congrats to Rossi. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Giovanni, I am making a snide reference to Dr. Nathan Lewis's snide reference to the athletic prowess of the Universities that had reproduced the FP effect -- indicating that, obviously, if you have a good football team you must be technically inept: See the youtube video capturing this marvel of institutional incompetence in actionhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoTX-ORq9_Yfeature=player_detailpage#t=746s . On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.comwrote: No football teams in Bologna University. In Italy Universities are focused on academics not sports. Giovanni On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:10 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Bologna University, Uppsala University and Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm must all have good football teams. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.comwrote: Available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 Press release http://ecat.com/news/3rd-party-report-shows-anomalous-heat-production-the-rossi-effect and direct report download: http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf 29 page report... skimming it, I see a COP: 5.6 +/- 0.8 Congrats to Rossi. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Snide yes. Of value? Not really. On 20/05/2013 5:42 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Giovanni, I am making a snide reference to Dr. Nathan Lewis's snide reference to the athletic prowess of the Universities that had reproduced the FP effect -- indicating that, obviously, if you have a good football team you must be technically inept: See the youtube video capturing this marvel of institutional incompetence in actionhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoTX-ORq9_Yfeature=player_detailpage#t=746s . On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: No football teams in Bologna University. In Italy Universities are focused on academics not sports. Giovanni On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:10 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Bologna University, Uppsala University and Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm must all have good football teams. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.comwrote: Available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 Press release http://ecat.com/news/3rd-party-report-shows-anomalous-heat-production-the-rossi-effect and direct report download: http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf 29 page report... skimming it, I see a COP: 5.6 +/- 0.8 Congrats to Rossi. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
On the contrary, Dr. Lewis's snide comment will go down in history as an incredibly valuable teachable moment and it is quite appropriate to remember it in the context of this announcement. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: Snide yes. Of value? Not really. On 20/05/2013 5:42 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Giovanni, I am making a snide reference to Dr. Nathan Lewis's snide reference to the athletic prowess of the Universities that had reproduced the FP effect -- indicating that, obviously, if you have a good football team you must be technically inept: See the youtube video capturing this marvel of institutional incompetence in actionhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoTX-ORq9_Yfeature=player_detailpage#t=746s . On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: No football teams in Bologna University. In Italy Universities are focused on academics not sports. Giovanni On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:10 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Bologna University, Uppsala University and Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm must all have good football teams. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.comwrote: Available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 Press release http://ecat.com/news/3rd-party-report-shows-anomalous-heat-production-the-rossi-effect and direct report download: http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf 29 page report... skimming it, I see a COP: 5.6 +/- 0.8 Congrats to Rossi. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
I get it. Thanks James. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On the contrary, Dr. Lewis's snide comment will go down in history as an incredibly valuable teachable moment and it is quite appropriate to remember it in the context of this announcement. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: Snide yes. Of value? Not really. On 20/05/2013 5:42 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Giovanni, I am making a snide reference to Dr. Nathan Lewis's snide reference to the athletic prowess of the Universities that had reproduced the FP effect -- indicating that, obviously, if you have a good football team you must be technically inept: See the youtube video capturing this marvel of institutional incompetence in actionhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoTX-ORq9_Yfeature=player_detailpage#t=746s . On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: No football teams in Bologna University. In Italy Universities are focused on academics not sports. Giovanni On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:10 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Bologna University, Uppsala University and Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm must all have good football teams. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.comwrote: Available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 Press release http://ecat.com/news/3rd-party-report-shows-anomalous-heat-production-the-rossi-effect and direct report download: http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf 29 page report... skimming it, I see a COP: 5.6 +/- 0.8 Congrats to Rossi. - Brad -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Three cheers for Andrea Rossi!!! You have to give the man credit. He can be very annoying some times, but at other times he comes through like no one else in this field. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
I sent a note to Andrea: I am especially pleased to see this in an open source library. I think I will copy it to LENR-CANR.org. Please tell Prof. Levi I intend to to that, if you get a chance. Congratulations to all of you. This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Interesting: Rossi canno obtain COP 6 without melting the rector! 2013/5/20 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I sent a note to Andrea: I am especially pleased to see this in an open source library. I think I will copy it to LENR-CANR.org. Please tell Prof. Levi I intend to to that, if you get a chance. Congratulations to all of you. This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting: Rossi canno obtain COP 6 without melting the rector! Perhaps with this device that is the case, but with previous reactors he often obtained much better ratios, and an infinite ratio, with no input. On Oct. 7, 2011, he ran for 4 hours without input. People expressed doubts about these previous tests, because the instrumentation was not good and because Rossi acts suspiciously at times. I think it is time to put aside these doubts. I have not read this new paper carefully, but I believe it puts to rest all doubts. It is not possible that Rossi was lying or faking in previous tests and only now he has something real. No one can go from nothing to something as dramatic as this in one step. It is time for the skeptics to admit they were wrong about Rossi. (Real skeptics, I mean, not the pathological ones.) There is no doubt that some of his tests did fail. He says so himself. In a few cases, such as with NASA, he said the reactor was working but they disagreed. The fact that it did not work at times does not in any way mean that it never worked. A real experimental device works sometimes but not other times. All of the cold fusion reactors I know of, made by FP, Mizuno, McKubre and others sometimes failed and sometimes worked. Frankly, at this stage in the development of the cold fusion, I would be suspicious of a device that always works. I do not think the input to output ratio (COP), has ever been significant in any cold fusion experiment. It reflects limitations of the test equipment or the conditions of that particular experiment. Many experiments must be run at sub-optimal temperatures and other conditions because laboratory test equipment does not work at high temperatures, or because it is difficult to measure heat at high temperatures. These limitations have no bearing on the technological potential of cold fusion. Once people learn to control the reaction, I have never had the slightest doubt they will be able to achieve any temperature up to the melting point of the host metal, and any COP they find convenient. This is simply *not an issue*. Many tests have shown that cold fusion can be fully ignited (self-sustaining). It may be more convenient or safer to run it with input power, but input power will be a small fraction of output with any technology. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
This is instantaneous COP. Sometimes, it has to be ignited. So, it is not really infinite. 2013/5/20 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting: Rossi canno obtain COP 6 without melting the rector! Perhaps with this device that is the case, but with previous reactors he often obtained much better ratios, and an infinite ratio, with no input. On Oct. 7, 2011, he ran for 4 hours without input. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: This is instantaneous COP. Sometimes, it has to be ignited. So, it is not really infinite. Naturally. But that is true of any energy device. Even a thermonuclear bomb has to be ignited or triggered with electricity, which triggers a chemical explosion, which triggers fission, which triggers fusion. The output of final stage fusion reaction far exceeds the input from the first three. I am confident that the output of a commercial cold fusion reactor will be set at any convenient ratio to input. Many tests have shown that the COP varies tremendously. It is not in a fixed ratio, and there is no reason to think that any reactor -- Rossi's or anyone else's -- is somehow limited to a ratio of 6, or 10 or any other number. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
COP of a watercooled reactor will be higher, it's just a matter of efficiently pull the heat out of the powder. In this particular set of tests no watercooling has been applied, only air cooling. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: This is instantaneous COP. Sometimes, it has to be ignited. So, it is not really infinite. 2013/5/20 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting: Rossi canno obtain COP 6 without melting the rector! Perhaps with this device that is the case, but with previous reactors he often obtained much better ratios, and an infinite ratio, with no input. On Oct. 7, 2011, he ran for 4 hours without input. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field. We should be patient -- I don't think it's been out long enough to receive full scrutiny, so there might be some methodological flaw that is turned up. Also, not that it would necessarily bear on the substance of the paper, since the mainstream journals have been uncooperative, but I'm anxious to see whether the paper has been accepted for publication in one. One thing I didn't understand was this note at the end: We also wish to thank ... Prof. Alessandro Passi (Bologna University [ret.]) for his patient work in translating the text. Since only two of the authors appear to be Italian, and the rest of them presumably Swedish, I would have figured that drafts of the paper would have been in English from the start. Or perhaps Guiseppe Levi had a predominating role in authoring it? Eric
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
They will now do a 6 month test, heh! 2013/5/20 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: We should be patient -- I don't think it's been out long enough to receive full scrutiny, so there might be some methodological flaw that is turned up. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Before we get too excited. I think two questions need to be answered. 1. When was the calibration done and under what conditions. The amount of heat being radiated depends on the value of the effective total emissivity of the surface. This value will change with time and temperature. Therefore, the value needs to be determined as a function of temperature both before and after the hot-cat was heated. Details about how the temperature of the surface was determined also need to be provided. A detailed description of the test is required before these claims can be accepted. 2. How long does the hot-cat function at such high temperatures. This time will determine whether the device is a practical source of energy. The extra energy may be real, but if it only lasts a short time before the NAE is destroyed, the value of the design is limited. Ed Storms On May 20, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting: Rossi canno obtain COP 6 without melting the rector! Perhaps with this device that is the case, but with previous reactors he often obtained much better ratios, and an infinite ratio, with no input. On Oct. 7, 2011, he ran for 4 hours without input. People expressed doubts about these previous tests, because the instrumentation was not good and because Rossi acts suspiciously at times. I think it is time to put aside these doubts. I have not read this new paper carefully, but I believe it puts to rest all doubts. It is not possible that Rossi was lying or faking in previous tests and only now he has something real. No one can go from nothing to something as dramatic as this in one step. It is time for the skeptics to admit they were wrong about Rossi. (Real skeptics, I mean, not the pathological ones.) There is no doubt that some of his tests did fail. He says so himself. In a few cases, such as with NASA, he said the reactor was working but they disagreed. The fact that it did not work at times does not in any way mean that it never worked. A real experimental device works sometimes but not other times. All of the cold fusion reactors I know of, made by FP, Mizuno, McKubre and others sometimes failed and sometimes worked. Frankly, at this stage in the development of the cold fusion, I would be suspicious of a device that always works. I do not think the input to output ratio (COP), has ever been significant in any cold fusion experiment. It reflects limitations of the test equipment or the conditions of that particular experiment. Many experiments must be run at sub-optimal temperatures and other conditions because laboratory test equipment does not work at high temperatures, or because it is difficult to measure heat at high temperatures. These limitations have no bearing on the technological potential of cold fusion. Once people learn to control the reaction, I have never had the slightest doubt they will be able to achieve any temperature up to the melting point of the host metal, and any COP they find convenient. This is simply not an issue. Many tests have shown that cold fusion can be fully ignited (self-sustaining). It may be more convenient or safer to run it with input power, but input power will be a small fraction of output with any technology. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:09:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released Before we get too excited. My biggest concern is with the resistive blank test. They should have done TWO blank runs a) (Which they did) -- run the resistor at full power to bring it to a similar temperature. b) Run the resistor with the same on-off cycle as the main run Remarks section : Their comparison of the shape of the heating/cooling curve with an RC resistor/capacitor circuit is WRONG because that assumes a linear resistor. But the radiation loss goes as T^4 --- I would be VERY surprised to see a shape like an RC exponential. They should just have given the curves with no comparison.
RE: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
From: Jed Rothwell Three cheers for Andrea Rossi!!! You have to give the man credit. He can be very annoying some times, but at other times he comes through like no one else in this field. Don't bring out the pom-poms just yet - at least not until the emissivity issue has been adequately addressed. No calorimetry was performed, only thermometry and Levy makes a conservative assumption for the emissivity. IMHO - he is on firm ground and it is/was conservative for epsilon to be 1 here - but it is still an assumption - and the reactor coating was not specified, but should be listed and possibly the reactor should be recoated with a certified blackbody coating - for a confirmation test. In 99% of the literature on the subject, you will see it firmly stated that for blackbody radiation, epsilon (emissivity) CANNOT be greater than one; but ... there is a fly in the ointment ... and there is a known niche field which is called cavity emissivity where epsilon can be greater than one. How much greater is unsure. These oddball emitters can be applied in a coating, and are non isothermal but do not violate CoE, of course, so there is likely to be a limit of how much spectrum can be shifted. I do not consider this a valid objection, but it needs to be aired in light of some old papers. http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1238876 If Rossi had an actual intent to deceive, and if he was aware of the type of IR meters being used in Bologna (likely), then apparently it is remotely possible to tailor the emissivity of the reactor coating in such a way that it appears to the IR meter to be giving off more heat than it really is (shifted spectrum emission). Let me be clear. This is highly UNLIKELY but it is still possible. It requires an actual intent to deceive, so it should be mentioned here, given the prior wet-steam fiasco. That episode may have constituted an actual intent to deceive (or extreme ignorance). At the risk of skeptics picking this point up later for a debunking of sorts - it is wise to address the issue of emissivity coatings up front now. What was the HotCat coated with - and/or could it be a cavity emitter ? But the main issue - why they did not perform water flow calorimetry? That is a major question that needs to be answered after all of these months. Instead of removing doubts, which they could have done with water flow - they merely added more doubts. Levi, of all people should know better after he was completely embarrassed two years ago in the wet steam fiasco. Why is Levi permitted to be the lead author here after the prior fail !?! Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Before we get too excited. I think two questions need to be answered. 1. When was the calibration done and under what conditions. I do not see what difference it makes when it was done. Anyway, it was after the hot run. The procedure is described in the paper on p. 18. 2. How long does the hot-cat function at such high temperatures. That is next on the agenda. Quoting the Ny Teknik report: The next test will be a long-term test. We will probably run for six months and see if heat production is continuous throughout an entire semester, says Bo Höistad. Some of Rossi's earlier reactors ran continuously for long periods. The factory heater went for months. So I doubt there is a problem. Perhaps the high temperature is a problem. In that case, I expect it can be run at more moderate temperatures for long periods, based on the performance of the factory heater and others. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
From the report, an interesting explanation of testing delays: The tests held in December 2012 and March 2013 are in fact subsequent to a previous attempt in November 2012 to make accurate measurements on a similar model of the *E-Cat HT *on the same premises. In that experiment the device was destroyed in the course of the experimental run, when the steel cylinder containing the active charge overheated and melted. The partial data gathered before the failure, however, yielded interesting results which warranted further in-depth investigation in future tests. Although the run was not successful as far as obtaining complete data is concerned, it was fruitful in that it demonstrated a huge production of excess heat, which however could not be quantified.The device used had similar, but not identical, features to those of the *E-Cat HT *used in the December and March runs. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 Press release http://ecat.com/news/3rd-party-report-shows-anomalous-heat-production-the-rossi-effect and direct report download: http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf 29 page report... skimming it, I see a COP: 5.6 +/- 0.8 Congrats to Rossi. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Is your biggest concern, then, quantitative rather than qualitative? (ie: You are convinced that they measured excess heat but are concerned about the degree of accuracy with which excess heat was measured.) It seems this must be the conclusion from the first of the two, proposed, blank runs given that the input power, ambient temperature of the room, color of the device and surface area are all known to a degree within the capability of even amateur scientists given instruments that were used for the measurements. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:09:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released Before we get too excited. My biggest concern is with the resistive blank test. They should have done TWO blank runs a) (Which they did) -- run the resistor at full power to bring it to a similar temperature. b) Run the resistor with the same on-off cycle as the main run Remarks section : Their comparison of the shape of the heating/cooling curve with an RC resistor/capacitor circuit is WRONG because that assumes a linear resistor. But the radiation loss goes as T^4 --- I would be VERY surprised to see a shape like an RC exponential. They should just have given the curves with no comparison.
RE: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Another point, Bob - the low amount of fuel is consistent with the main patent claim for the use of an enriched isotope of Ni-62. An enriched isotope would be expensive, even if Rossi has found a way to enrich it himself. If he had bought .6 gram from Goodfellows it would have set him back at least $10k for purity which is probably not needed. From: Bob Higgins Kudos to A. Rossi for this huge step forward in validation of his work! One thing in the report that I find incredible was the amount of fuel that was measured by cutting open the inner cylinder and dumping out the catalyst-fuel - supposedly only 0.6g. This is a tiny amount of nickel powder. Carbonyl Ni micro-powder has a bulk density of about 3.6g/cc. Thus, the volume of powder that came out would have been only 0.17cc from a containing cylinder of 3cm x 33cm. I don't think it is possible to adequately conduct that much heat from 0.17cc of loose powder - that much heat would have caused loose powder to melt if it were the source. Instead, I suspect that the HotCat must have the catalyst-fuel powder coated/bonded on the inside surface of the cylinder like a thermally conductive paint. Then, only what had come loose would have been measured when they cut the cylinder open. Of course, this will make the Ragone estimate off by an order of magnitude, but the real number is likely still orders of magnitude more than that of chemical sources. Maybe what came out was a small amount of a metal hydride that was the source for the H2 in the cylinder.
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field. We should be patient -- I don't think it's been out long enough to receive full scrutiny, so there might be some methodological flaw that is turned up. I doubt there is a problem. These people are experts and they have been at it for a while. They went through a couple of Hot Cats, as you see. If there is a problem then it isn't important. It is inconsequential! You can consider my statement conditional. Also, not that it would necessarily bear on the substance of the paper, since the mainstream journals have been uncooperative, but I'm anxious to see whether the paper has been accepted for publication in one. I doubt it. That is too much to hope for. This will have an impact even without that. We also wish to thank ... Prof. Alessandro Passi (Bologna University [ret.]) for his patient work in translating the text. Since only two of the authors appear to be Italian, and the rest of them presumably Swedish, I would have figured that drafts of the paper would have been in English from the start. My guess is they mean he edited or cleaned up the text to make it standard English. The English is so good I assumed they have a native speaker go over it. It is difficult for anyone to write a paper in a second language that is so good, a native speaker thinks it was written by another native speaker. You can usually spot a few words. I noticed a few things even in papers by Martin Fleischmann. He spoke English superbly but on rare occasions he made slight errors in idiomatic expressions. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field. ***I agree. Here's the primary takeaway: Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources. That means Rossi can sell his device at 5X the cost of another device and it will still save the user 2X. There is a ton of room for him to maneuver. The snowball might be moving slowly at this moment, but in the blink of an eye it will be rolling fast and gathering momentum material in its inexorable journey to change the world. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I sent a note to Andrea: I am especially pleased to see this in an open source library. I think I will copy it to LENR-CANR.org. Please tell Prof. Levi I intend to to that, if you get a chance. Congratulations to all of you. This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released - Angels on a pin
There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the big thing here is, why bother? They get a torrent of heat, /easily/ shown by IR to be far, far more than any that accepted science can explain away, and you want that last decimal place? The question that was answered is, /is it real/? The answer is binary, two-state, accuracy is not a factor. But I think what you are really saying is that somehow hot water trumps IR, in the gut perhaps. It's not separated from common sense basement engineering by several exponential equations. And I think you are right in this, at least for a portion of the (persuadable) critics. Ol' Bab On 5/20/2013 12:04 PM, Jones Beene wrote: But the main issue - why they did not perform water flow calorimetry? That is a major question that needs to be answered after all of these months. Instead of removing doubts, which they could have done with water flow - they merely added more doubts.
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Or the sintering temperature promotes the reaction instead of destroying it. Harry On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: Kudos to A. Rossi for this huge step forward in validation of his work! One thing in the report that I find incredible was the amount of fuel that was measured by cutting open the inner cylinder and dumping out the catalyst-fuel - supposedly only 0.6g. This is a tiny amount of nickel powder. Carbonyl Ni micro-powder has a bulk density of about 3.6g/cc. Thus, the volume of powder that came out would have been only 0.17cc from a containing cylinder of 3cm x 33cm. I don't think it is possible to adequately conduct that much heat from 0.17cc of loose powder - that much heat would have caused loose powder to melt if it were the source. Instead, I suspect that the HotCat must have the catalyst-fuel powder coated/bonded on the inside surface of the cylinder like a thermally conductive paint. Then, only what had come loose would have been measured when they cut the cylinder open. Of course, this will make the Ragone estimate off by an order of magnitude, but the real number is likely still orders of magnitude more than that of chemical sources. Maybe what came out was a small amount of a metal hydride that was the source for the H2 in the cylinder.
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released - Angels on a pin
David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the big thing here is, why bother? I can think of some very good reasons not to do water flow calorimetry. At these temperatures and power levels, it would be dangerous. Also difficult. It would probably cool the reactor too fast and quench the reaction. The only way I can think to avoid that would be to envelop the reactor under insulating material with the cooling water flowing over the outside of the envelope. This might well cause the reactor to overheat and melt, again. If I had one reactor melt, I would definitely not go with a method that hides the reactor or insulates it. If they let the water vaporize it would remove a lot of heat but the skeptics would go ape shit because they do not believe the textbook heat of vaporization for water is correct (2260 J/g). All in all, I would steer clear of this method. I wonder if it is incandescent in the control runs during the step with 283 W of input power. I doubt it. One thing for sure: You cannot melt a device of this nature with 283 W! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released - Angels on a pin
This is symptomatic of what I mean when I say this is entirely outside the realm of academic discourse. The psychology of the academic is that the engineering of the experimental apparatus is entirely under his control -- hence one would, of course, design the heat source to be compatible with the most widely-accepted standards of calorimetry. It is not within the psychological set of the academic that the key aspect of the experimental apparatus is not only not under his control but it so far from what he would consider a reasonable design, given the constraints normally imposed by funding, that his prior experimental techniques would be rendered impractical. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the big thing here is, why bother? I can think of some very good reasons not to do water flow calorimetry. At these temperatures and power levels, it would be dangerous. Also difficult. It would probably cool the reactor too fast and quench the reaction. The only way I can think to avoid that would be to envelop the reactor under insulating material with the cooling water flowing over the outside of the envelope. This might well cause the reactor to overheat and melt, again. If I had one reactor melt, I would definitely not go with a method that hides the reactor or insulates it. If they let the water vaporize it would remove a lot of heat but the skeptics would go ape shit because they do not believe the textbook heat of vaporization for water is correct (2260 J/g). All in all, I would steer clear of this method. I wonder if it is incandescent in the control runs during the step with 283 W of input power. I doubt it. One thing for sure: You cannot melt a device of this nature with 283 W! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released - Angels on a pin
Debunkers will say water flow calorimetry conceals a trick. Harry On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:31 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.comwrote: There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the big thing here is, why bother? They get a torrent of heat, *easily* shown by IR to be far, far more than any that accepted science can explain away, and you want that last decimal place? The question that was answered is, *is it real*? The answer is binary, two-state, accuracy is not a factor. But I think what you are really saying is that somehow hot water trumps IR, in the gut perhaps. It's not separated from common sense basement engineering by several exponential equations. And I think you are right in this, at least for a portion of the (persuadable) critics. Ol' Bab On 5/20/2013 12:04 PM, Jones Beene wrote: But the main issue - why they did not perform water flow calorimetry? That is a major question that needs to be answered after all of these months. Instead of removing doubts, which they could have done with water flow - they merely added more doubts.
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 After reading the report pretty closely, I am cautiously optimistic that things are proceeding very well. There were things that made me think that the report was not exactly publication-ready, but hopefully those things can be fixed. I am very interested to know if there are any debunkers here who wish to weigh in on the substance of this paper for all posterity and for all time? (If you must debunk, debunk subtly, so that we do not obviously break the rules.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
I've been seen some blogs that reported this paper. The most popular argument is that all this is a falsification for a scam. 2013/5/20 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 After reading the report pretty closely, I am cautiously optimistic that things are proceeding very well. There were things that made me think that the report was not exactly publication-ready, but hopefully those things can be fixed. I am very interested to know if there are any debunkers here who wish to weigh in on the substance of this paper for all posterity and for all time? (If you must debunk, debunk subtly, so that we do not obviously break the rules.) Eric -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I've been seen some blogs that reported this paper. The most popular argument is that all this is a falsification for a scam. Naturally that is what they say. That is what they always say. So, there are now several new scientists from Uppsala U. taking part in this scam. They are all in it together! It is a conspiracy I tell you, a conspiracy! Mary Yugo will claim that Rossi alone is doing this, and the scientists are being duped. That can only mean he has a magical ability to change the reading in a clamp-on ammeter, a voltmeter, and an IR camera that is not even touching his cell. It is all first-principle physics after you measure input power and emissivity. There is no room for fraud. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources. This is an unequivocal statement about the energy balance of the Hot Cat. The authors: - Giuseppe Levi, Bologna University - Evelyn Foschi - Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér, Uppsala University - Hanno Essén, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm Seven authors altogether (I think I remember hearing a larger number at some point). Eric
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Re: Seven authors altogether (I think I remember hearing a larger number at some point). The number of involved scientists mentioned were high, somewhere around 15. In the paper, there are various other people mentioned in the acknowledgements section. These could be counted as involved scientists but not authors. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources. This is an unequivocal statement about the energy balance of the Hot Cat. The authors: - Giuseppe Levi, Bologna University - Evelyn Foschi - Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér, Uppsala University - Hanno Essén, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm Seven authors altogether (I think I remember hearing a larger number at some point). Eric -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
