Re: [Vo]:Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi Experiment at U. Bologna, January 14, 2011
I uploaded that to the News section. I was tempted to add: Hey, Richard Garwin: here's your cuppa tea, big guy! I will soon upload a more detailed description by Mike Melich, and I hope I can add Prof. Levi's report. I think it is all but certain these results are real. They cannot be a mistake, and fraud seems unlikely to me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi Experiment at U. Bologna, January 14, 2011
Roarty, Francis X wrote: Nice job! My only question regards the Alternating-current heater used to bring the Rossi device up the working temperature. Do they specify if this is just out of the wall AC or a more elaborate HV duty factor sort of arrangement? I asked that but I have not got an answer yet. So far they said that Dr. Levi provided the instruments to monitor the heat input power. From the photo it looks like an ordinary power meter. Based on the photo, I think the part about weighing the H2 bottle is wrong. I think that detail was garbled in translation or in a misunderstanding. I will revise it after lunch. The photo shows what I think is the reservoir sitting on a weight scale. I will upload this photo and a report after lunch, as soon as the authors tell me it is okay. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi Experiment at U. Bologna, January 14, 2011
I was going to mention this before I saw Peter's message, but he beat me to it. On 01/17/2011 11:14 AM, P.J van Noorden wrote: Hello Jed, How do we know that all the water ( 8.8 l) evaporated? Was the Rossi device weighted before and after the test? The diameter of the device is about 10 cm, so there could still be a few liters inside after the experiment. This is another example of the disastrous consequences of depending on a black box test. The stuff coming out could have been dry steam, or it could have been hot air. In fact, unless the dry steam was recondensed and the water which resulted was weighed, all we know for sure is that Rossi has demonstrated a device which made some quantity of water /vanish/. The person presenting the demonstration -- Rossi -- claims he turned it into steam. What proof is there of that? With a single demonstration, in which only one researcher knows what's inside the box, unless you have rock solid confidence in that researcher, you should take /nothing/ for granted. Once again, this is also probably not the trick. In fact, I don't know what the trick might be; chances are, if there's a trick, it's something far cleverer than any idea we'll come up with here. But without solid evidence to the contrary, there is no way to prove that there is no trick. Without full disclosure and independent replication there is no solid evidence. An easy way to measure the heat of this system more accurately would have been to increase the waterflow to e.g 100 ml /sec ( about 20 times higher as the flow that was used). If 12 kW was produced one would have measured a temperature increase of 30 degrees constantly, with a power input of only 700-800W. This would have been a very practical system because normally with 700-800 W you can not have a shower with hot water. You need about 10 kW. If Rossi had demonstrated that he could heat such an amount of water continously for an hour he could have convinced almost anybody. Why didn`t he do that? Peter - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 3:20 PM Subject: [Vo]:Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi Experiment at U. Bologna, January 14, 2011 Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi Experiment at U. Bologna, January 14, 2011 by Jed Rothwell The experiment has been underway at U. Bologna since mid-December 2010. It has been done several times. Several professors with expertise in related subjects such as calorimetry are involved. LIST OF MAIN EQUIPMENT IN EXPERIMENT A hydrogen tank mounted on a weight scale which is accurate to 0.1 g 10 liter tank reservoir, which is refilled as needed during the run Displacement pump Tube from pump to Rossi device (The Rossi device is known as an ECat) Outlet tube from the Rossi device, which emits hot water or steam Thermocouples in the reservoir, ambient air and the outlet tube An HD37AB1347 IAQ Monitor (Delta Ohm) to measure the relative humidity of the steam. This is to confirm that it is dry steam; that is, steam only, with no water droplets. Alternating-current heater used to bring the Rossi device up the working temperature METHOD The reservoir water temperature is measured at 13°C, ambient air at 23°C. The heater is set to about 1000 W to heat up the Rossi device. Hydrogen is admitted to the Rossi device. The displacement pump is turned on, injecting water into the Rossi device at 292 ml/min. The water comes out as warm water at first, then as a mixture of steam and water, and finally after about 30 minutes, as dry steam. This is confirmed with the relative humidity meter. As the device heats up, heater power is reduced to around 400 W. RESULTS The test run on January 14 lasted for 1 hour. After the first 30 minutes the outlet flow became dry steam. The enthalpy during this last 30 minutes can be computed very simply, based on the heat capacity of water (4.2 kJ/kgK) and heat of vaporization of water (2260 kJ/kg): Mass of water 8.8 kg Temperature change 87°C Energy to bring water to 100°C: 87°C*4.2*8.8 kg = 3,216 kJ Energy to vaporize 10 kg of water: 2260*8.8 = 19,888 kJ Total: 23,107 kJ Duration 30 minutes = 1800 seconds Power 12,837 W, minus auxiliary power ~12 kW There were two potential ways in which input power might have been measured incorrectly: heater power, and the hydrogen, which might have burned if air had been present in the cell. The heater power was measured at 400 W. It could not have been much higher that this, because it is plugged into an ordinary wall outlet. Even if a wall socket could supply 12 kW, the heater electric wire would burn. During the test runs the weight of the hydrogen tank did not measurably decrease, so less than 0.1 g of hydrogen was consumed. 0.1 g of hydrogen is 0.1 mole, which makes 0.05 mole of water. The heat of
Re: [Vo]:Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi Experiment at U. Bologna, January 14, 2011
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: How do we know that all the water ( 8.8 l) evaporated? That's what the RH meter is for. (May have answered already.) This is another example of the disastrous consequences of depending on a black box test. The stuff coming out could have been dry steam, or it could have been hot air. No, for two reasons: 1. You can tell the difference between steam and hot air. 2. The volume of the machine is much smaller than the 18 liters of water injected into it over the course of an hour. There is no place inside it to hide the water. The fact that it is a black box does not reduce the certainty of this particular factor in any way. In fact, unless the dry steam was recondensed and the water which resulted was weighed, all we know for sure is that Rossi has demonstrated a device which made some quantity of water /vanish/. That would be even more remarkable than cold fusion. Vanish were? How? Into a 5th dimension? The person presenting the demonstration -- Rossi -- claims he turned it into steam. What proof is there of that? The profs who designed the experiment made sure there was proof. They -- not Rossi -- confirmed it was steam. With a single demonstration, in which only one researcher knows what's inside the box, unless you have rock solid confidence in that researcher, you should take /nothing/ for granted. Maybe, but you should also not assume that someone can magically make 18 liters of water vanish into thin air. Once again, this is also probably not the trick. In fact, I don't know what the trick might be; chances are, if there's a trick, it's something far cleverer than any idea we'll come up with here. The only people who could engineer a trick would be the profs who designed the experiment. They would do this with something like a secret hose from the device that runs under the table, through the table leg and through the floor, with a secret hose bringing in steam. I can think of a dozen ways to fake this. If this were a stage trick or a movie I could easily come up with ways to make it look real. HOWEVER, the key point is, the professors who did this experiment have no motivation to set up that kind of stage trick, and Rossi himself is physically incapable of doing it. Do you think they let him into the lab for a week with a team of special effects experts, so they could drill holes in the table and floor for tubes, or so that they could change the electric sockets? As long as you trust the people who designed, implemented and operated the experiment, the black box in the middle is irrelevant. The whole point of an experiment is to reveal the nature of a sample (or black box if you like). Even if you know exactly how the sample works -- for example, if it is a Nicad battery attached to a resistor -- your experiment should treat it as a black box that might yield any answer, even an endothermic reaction. You wouldn't want to make a calorimeter that automatically rejects or hides an endothermic result, even if you have no expectation you will see one. A experiment that requires you understand what the test sample is and what it is doing is not, strictly speaking, an experiment at all. All cold fusion experiments are block box tests. No one knows how the effect works, or in detail what causes it. This particular test happens to be a single-blind test, where one person knows the content of the device and the others do not. Actually, this is a more reliable way to confirm heat than a test where everyone knows the sample content. This reduces bias, or wishful thinking. The single-blind tests for helium conducted by labs in cooperation with Melvin Miles were more convincing precisely because the people testing the samples had no idea of the sample history, and no preconceived notions about what they might find, or what they were supposed to find. Miles sent them blank samples such a laboratory air, to help eliminate bias. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi Experiment at U. Bologna, January 14, 2011
On 01/17/2011 02:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: How do we know that all the water ( 8.8 l) evaporated? That's what the RH meter is for. (May have answered already.) Mmmm? I didn't see that mentioned, and I didn't realize that's what it was doing. In fact I thought that was being used as part of the verification that it was dry steam. If it's pure steam, presumably the RH is 100% -- right? And was the flow rate of the /output/ measured, and integrated to obtain a total volume? I don't recall that being mentioned. This is another example of the disastrous consequences of depending on a black box test. The stuff coming out could have been dry steam, or it could have been hot air. No, for two reasons: 1. You can tell the difference between steam and hot air. You mean one can tell It was not clear to me that the check to see that it really was steam was being done. You are apparently asserting it was, indeed, done; that's good! 2. The volume of the machine is much smaller than the 18 liters of water injected into it over the course of an hour. There is no place inside it to hide the water. The fact that it is a black box does not reduce the certainty of this particular factor in any way. In fact, unless the dry steam was recondensed and the water which resulted was weighed, all we know for sure is that Rossi has demonstrated a device which made some quantity of water /vanish/. That would be even more remarkable than cold fusion. Vanish were? How? Into a 5th dimension? Same place the Statue of Liberty went. Heck, Jed, you've surely seen stage magicians -- making things vanish is an illusionist's stock in trade. Just because I can't tell you where it might have gone doesn't mean it didn't go somewhere other than where we're told it went. Trying to prove otherwise is trying to prove a negative. Again, the issue is trust. If we haven't got it, it's a problem. And as I've observed ad nauseum, Rossi's secret ingredient makes it impossible for anyone to replicate this, which makes it impossible to check the results. And that would absolutely serve his purpose if he really is cheating. The person presenting the demonstration -- Rossi -- claims he turned it into steam. What proof is there of that? The profs who designed the experiment made sure there was proof. They -- not Rossi -- confirmed it was steam. I hope so. Note well: If they trust Rossi, then there would be no /a priori/ reason for us to assume they'd check to be sure the water that went in all came back out. They'd want to know it was /dry/ steam, of course, but that's just guarding against a /mistake/ on Rossi's part, not intentional deception. So, it's good to hear that they verified it really was steam, /and/ that they measured the total volume which came out -- right? With a single demonstration, in which only one researcher knows what's inside the box, unless you have rock solid confidence in that researcher, you should take /nothing/ for granted. Maybe, but you should also not assume that someone can magically make 18 liters of water vanish into thin air. Once again, this is also probably not the trick. In fact, I don't know what the trick might be; chances are, if there's a trick, it's something far cleverer than any idea we'll come up with here. The only people who could engineer a trick would be the profs who designed the experiment. They would do this with something like a secret hose from the device that runs under the table, through the table leg and through the floor, with a secret hose bringing in steam. I can think of a dozen ways to fake this. If this were a stage trick or a movie I could easily come up with ways to make it look real. HOWEVER, the key point is, the professors who did this experiment have no motivation to set up that kind of stage trick, and Rossi himself is physically incapable of doing it. Do you think they let him into the lab for a week with a team of special effects experts, so they could drill holes in the table and floor for tubes, or so that they could change the electric sockets? /I have no idea what they allowed him to do/. Do you know, for sure, whether he was allowed to set things up in the lab, by himself, ahead of time? (Perhaps to assure that the reactor would work correctly, or something was properly adjusted, or to add the secret ingredient?) I sure don't, and as I've also said, repeatedly, if there is a player involved whom you don't fully trust, you should /assume nothing/. As long as you trust the people who designed, implemented and operated the experiment, the black box in the middle is irrelevant. That is true /if/ the creator of the black box isn't the one running the experiment. But that's not the case here, unless I'm seriously mistaken. Others worked on the design, but Rossi ran the show -- right? The whole point of an experiment is to reveal the nature of a sample
Re: [Vo]:Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi Experiment at U. Bologna, January 14, 2011
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: How do we know that all the water ( 8.8 l) evaporated? That's what the RH meter is for. (May have answered already.) This is another example of the disastrous consequences of depending on a black box test. The stuff coming out could have been dry steam, or it could have been hot air. No, for two reasons: 1. You can tell the difference between steam and hot air. 2. The volume of the machine is much smaller than the 18 liters of water injected into it over the course of an hour. There is no place inside it to hide the water. The fact that it is a black box does not reduce the certainty of this particular factor in any way. A relative humidity sensor does not measure the dryness of the steam. Here are links to ultrasonic foggers - they make tiny water droplets that look like steam. These droplets are liquid water - these are not using glycol, mineral oil or other fluids. It is water being exposed to a 1.6 MHz piezoelectric vibrating surface. They don't go through a phase change from liquid to gas. So if the droplets condense in a bucket or a drain pipe then the energy transported is a tiny fraction of boiling water. If these tiny droplets were heated to 80 C or 100 C then someone feeling them would think they were being exposed to pure vaporized (gaseous) water. from the website: The fog units of an ultrasonic fogger use a piezoelectric transducer that has a resonating frequency of around 1.6MHz. These high energy vibrations cause the water to turn into a fog-like cloud, thus generating fog. These foggers use ultrasonic waves to produce fog that consists of water particles of the size of less than 5 microns. This fog can penetrate to the minutest of spaces, thus eliminating chances of any free water. The ultrasonic fogger circuit is not very difficult to design. These foggers have very few moving parts and require no special temperature and pressure conditions. This kind of design and working of ultrasonic foggers makes them a low-maintenance and economical appliance. Moreover, they are easy to install and use. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/ultrasonic-fogger-how-does-it-work.html http://www.mainlandmart.com/foggers.html here is a link to the glycol or mineral oil type foggers - which is not based on ultrasonics but on heating and cooling (and obviously not what Rossi would be using) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_machine
