subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:Focardi and Rossi paper"

Michel Jullian wrote:


 Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it?


No. The authors are aware of this paper. It is really their work.



 Or one would have to imagine that Focardi himself has been conned. Note
 that multi-kW excess heat must be quite easy to fake in this
 particular device, with its built-in heating resistor. For example, add
 AC current of a higher frequency than the meter's bandwidth.


I do not think this method could make 80 W look like 3,000 W. Most meter
have high bandwidth; I have never heard of high frequency AC adding more
than a fraction of 1% to the total. You would have to design and build
specialized equipment to put 97% of the electricity into the cell with high
frequency AC. And as a practical matter, how would you do this? Sneak some
equipment into the lab at night? Bribe a lab assistant? How would you keep
Focardi from doing some elementary cross checking to find out? This sounds
like something from a made-for-TV thriller.

If there is a con involved, Focardi must be part of it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

2010-03-15 Thread Michel Jullian

If they have equal shares in this work, why isn't Focardi on the patent?

Michel

2010/3/15, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
 Michel Jullian wrote:


 Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it?


 No. The authors are aware of this paper. It is really their work.



 Or one would have to imagine that Focardi himself has been conned. Note
 that multi-kW excess heat must be quite easy to fake in this
 particular device, with its built-in heating resistor. For example, add
 AC current of a higher frequency than the meter's bandwidth.


 I do not think this method could make 80 W look like 3,000 W. Most meter
 have high bandwidth; I have never heard of high frequency AC adding more
 than a fraction of 1% to the total. You would have to design and build
 specialized equipment to put 97% of the electricity into the cell with high
 frequency AC. And as a practical matter, how would you do this? Sneak some
 equipment into the lab at night? Bribe a lab assistant? How would you keep
 Focardi from doing some elementary cross checking to find out? This sounds
 like something from a made-for-TV thriller.

 If there is a con involved, Focardi must be part of it.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

Michel Jullian wrote:

If they have equal shares in this work, why isn't Focardi on the patent?


I did not say they have equal shares. I have no idea how much each
contributed. I said I am sure Focardi knows about this paper.

Anyway, that patent seems worthless, for the reasons already discussed here.

I mentioned elementary cross checking. Calibration, in other words. The
paper has no details about the experiment so I do not know if they did this,
but I have never heard of an experiment without calibration. Focardi is not
a fool or an amateur, although this paper seems amateur.

The other thing I should mention is that a good power meter is immune to the
high frequency AC problem. Expensive meters will catch all input power, no
matter how high or irregular the frequency. They typically use three methods
of measuring power including our old friend calorimetry. The power flowing
through the system heats up a small element and the temperature is converted
to a power level. This is an an analog method. It is slow and imprecise, but
accurate and immune to sampling errors. It will not detect very low power.

Unfortunately I have no idea what sort of meter Focardi and Rossi use. They
could have eliminated many doubts about this experiment by supplying a few
details, a schematic, and a photo. If they would tell us what sort of power
supply they are using, or include a photo of it, we could see whether it can
supply 3,000 W. If you need only 80 W input, why would you use such a big
power supply? On the other hand, they should calibrate through the entire
range of output power before declaring this is 3,000 W and not 2,800 W or
3,500 W.

The Patterson light water cell demonstration that I saw years ago in
California had many problems. Really, it was one of the worst experimental
setups I have ever seen. I was deeply disappointed and mad as a hornet --
especially after they told me I could not describe it in detail or do some
cross-checking with my own instruments. I told them I would take the next
plane home if those are the rules. They rescinded. Anyway, it was made of
ridiculously low-budget, unreliable parts, and it failed drastically in the
middle of the demo, as I described in the report. But the fact that it was
so cheap, and rudimentary, also conferred a few advantages. For example, the
power supply was a Radio Shack battery eliminator. That was the only source
of input power to the system. I had a Radio Shack power supply just like
that, and I know for a fact it could not have produced more than a few
watts, whereas the cell was definitely producing ~1,000 W. The other
advantage was the very simplicity of the thing meant I could confirm it with
equally simplistic, crude, 18th century instruments: a mercury thermometer,
a stop-watch, and a graduated 1-liter cylinder. I measured the temperature
of the water in the tank and stirred it to confirm the inlet temperature.
Then I collected the flowing electrolyte for a fixed period of time in the
cylinder. I stirred it up with the thermometer, and thereby confirmed the
flow rate and the outlet temperature. I also used a Radio Shack thermistor
good to 0.1 deg C. Half-way through the test the setup began to fail. As I
recall, their flow rate measurement was off. The flow was plugged up and the
temperature climbing rapidly. But anyway, with my crude cross-checking this
was obvious. I am sure the test before and after that was valid. Plus I am
sure the cell was producing *far* more heat than that Radio Shack power
supply could supply, because it was palpably hot, and the power supply would
have melted or burst into flames if it was producing that much electricity.
So, to this day, I do not know of any reason to doubt Patterson's results .
. . except for the obvious reason that it cannot be replicated.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

Michel Jullian meant that the built-in built-in resistance heater
might go up to 3 kW. There is no other input power. The heater is
only needed to bring the temperature up to the temperature at which
the Ni reacts. I guess that would be the temperature at which it
readily absorbs hydrogen.

I do not think a heater requires any kind of fancy AC. It would be DC.

I assume they are using the same basic technique they have been doing
all these years, only using finely divided Ni instead of an Ni rod
with mysterious surface characteristics that no one else can
replicate. Here is a long paper describing their previous experiments:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdfhttp://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf

Here is a well-known paper that casts doubt on Focard's calorimetry,
but only method A described in the current paper, not B or C:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CerronZebainvestigat.pdfhttp://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CerronZebainvestigat.pdf

If these authors are right, it shows that you can make a large
mistake with technique A. That doesn't surprise me.

Anyway, this 80 W strikes me as odd, but that may only be a function
of my ignorance of this technique, and the lack of detail in the
paper. But what does this 80 W mean?

Maybe this means it takes only about 80 W to bring it up to the
operating temperature. That would mean the cell is well insulated. In
that case, how do they keep from drastically from overheating when it
produces 3 kW?

Or, maybe this means it takes 3 kW from the heater to bring the cell
up the recommended operating temperature, but after the reaction
starts up they can reduce the input power down to 80 W and maintain
the high temperature. That would be a dandy way to do the experiment.
You might say it is self-calibrating, making it difficult to argue
that the input power is causing a false reading. However, if this is
what is happening, it raises a huge question. An elephant-in-the-room
sized question. Why not insulate the cell a little more, and dial the
input power all the way back to zero? In other words, why not make
the thing fully self-sustaining?!? That would eliminate any question
about input power. Why is there any input to output ratio in this paper at all?

Frankly, the whole thing is a confounded mystery to me. But as I
said, I have been advised to reserve judgement and await developments
because it may be better than it looks.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper


I wrote:

The Patterson light water cell demonstration . . . was made of 
ridiculously low-budget, unreliable parts, and it failed drastically 
in the middle of the demo, as I described in the report.


Cravens briefed me before I went to California, so I had some idea 
what the demo was like. I knew the flow rate, Delta T and so on. 
That's why I brought the thermometer and stop watch. With a more 
sophisticated calorimeter you can't even reach the flowing water. It 
is all sealed up, as you see on the 60 Minutes program.


Although, it is worth mentioning, both McKubre and Storms have used a 
siphon and weight scale in addition to a flow meter. You can watch 
the siphon fill up and dump out periodically, and see for yourself 
what the flow rate is. That's exactly what I did with the stop watch 
and graduated cylinder. You don't have to trust the instruments.


(With the siphon, the weight scale is tied into the computer which 
records of the increase in weight of water, and you ignore the 
periods when it suddenly decreases, and the siphon dumps out.)


I was disappointed in the cheap implementation. So was George Miley. 
But the technique is fine, and Cravens did a good job at several 
things that have caused problems in other people's calorimeters. For 
example, the flow rate was fast and there were mixers installed in 
front of both the inlet and outlet thermocouples. The thermocouples 
were good quality.


I asked Cravens why on earth they made the thing so cheap looking, 
with such hokey stuff. For a few thousand bucks more they could have 
made it far more convincing, with a precision flow meter and so on. 
They did that for an ICCF conference a year later. Cravens said to me 
they told me to make it convincing but not too convincing. For 
political reasons. That was one of the nuttiest moments in the 
history of cold fusion -- a history replete with nuttiness.



I could confirm it with equally simplistic, crude, 18th century 
instruments: a mercury thermometer . . .


I meant an alcohol thermometer. I got it from a high-school science 
class supply company. It was reliable and accurate.




I am sure the test before and after that was valid.


I mean before and after the heat excursion caused when the flow got 
plugged up. As Ed Storms emphasizes, calorimetry gets much more 
complicated during a heat excursion, or during start up, or in other 
rapidly changing conditions. Before and after this event the heat was 
reasonably steady over periods. I think it was steady enough to 
establish the power level with confidence. It was stable enough to be 
sure the heat could not be coming from that power supply, which as I 
recall was rated at 5 W maximum.



When I listed light water experiments a few days ago, I should have 
included Patterson.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper


Notice the programmer's bias in this statement:

(With the siphon, the weight scale is tied into the computer which 
records of the increase in weight of water, and you ignore the 
periods when it suddenly decreases, and the siphon dumps out.)


Yes, the numbers on my screen are going down. Something's happening 
out there. Hey, look up! Yoo-hoo! The siphon's dumping.


The siphon dumps and the numbers suddenly decrease, not the other way around.

That's pretty funny.


On the other hand, instruments and computers do sometimes generate 
scads of fascinating numbers that turn to have no connection to 
physical reality. Or at least, not the connection the researcher 
imagines. See the Cerron-Zeballos paper: We found the results 
previously published to be consistent with our observations; namely 
we measured higher temperatures for the same input power when 
hydrogen is absorbed during a heating cycle. Nevertheless this 
temperature rise does not appear to correspond to an increase in heat 
production. . . .


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper


I wrote:

Anyway, this 80 W strikes me as odd, but that may only be a function 
of my ignorance of this technique, and the lack of detail in the 
paper. But what does this 80 W mean?


Maybe this means it takes only about 80 W to bring it up to the 
operating temperature. That would mean the cell is well insulated. 
In that case, how do they keep from drastically from overheating 
when it produces 3 kW? . . .


I have confused the issue here. Let me set the record straight.

As you see in the paper, it is not 80 W at all. In the first 1-day 
test period in Table 1 they list 0.2 kWh of input energy, not power. 
And that would be 8 W average if it was turned on the whole 24 hours. 
Eight, not 80. My arithmetic is hopeless. Anyway, I assumed that was 
steady power the whole day but maybe it was turned up to 200 W for 
the first hour and it was off the rest of the time. Who knows.


You would think they would tell us if that's how it works.

What would they need 8 W of steady input power for? Am I missing 
something here?


Test #4 is 14 days long: Feb. 17 - March 3, 2009. Input energy is 
much higher: 5.1 kWh. Assuming that is steady, power is ~15 W. Test 
#5 is 52 days long, 18.54 kWh. Again, that works out to be ~15 W if 
it is steady. In other words, input energy appears to be roughly 
proportional to the duration of the experiment. They do not appear to 
giving it a burst of heat at the beginning and letting is 
self-sustain. If they were, all of the tests would show roughly 0.2 
kWh input, I suppose.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

2010-03-15 Thread Steven Krivit


At 01:46 AM 3/15/2010, you wrote:

2010/3/14 Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com:
 At 02:35 AM 3/14/2010, you wrote:

 Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work?

 I don't think he would want to.

Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it? Or one
would have to imagine that Focardi himself has been conned.


Right. That's not possible. What a relief.


Note that
multi-kW excess heat must be quite easy to fake in this particular
device, with its built-in heating resistor. For example, add AC
current of a higher frequency than the meter's bandwidth.

 Is there any support on this research such as a published paper or a
 conference presentation or is it just this blog site that is made to look
 like a journal?

Not that I know, apart from the patent application which of course
isn't valid support either.


Ok...thanks.

My next question is how the whole buzz on this started...obviously there 
was the Journal of Nuclear Physics Web site. But who propagated that 
around? Anybody know?
I have received several queries on this matter from multiple sources from 
several countries in Europe and in the U.S. Something/someone 
triggered/launched a viral response. I do not have any clue at the moment 
what/who did so.


S

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper


Steven Krivit wrote:

My next question is how the whole buzz on this started...obviously 
there was the Journal of Nuclear Physics Web site. But who 
propagated that around? Anybody know?


The usual suspects. Me and many others. Anyone interested in cold 
fusion will have heard about this by now. It is either an exciting 
new development, or a mistake. We have seen a good many of both.


Focardi is widely known. He has published in important journals. 
Everyone familiar with the literature knows about him. They probably 
also know that Cerron-Zeballos called into question his work, and 
that others have had difficulty replicating. However, despite the 
fact that doubts have been raised about his work, I take him 
seriously, and I would take notice of any news or new paper from him. 
Naturally, I will pass on this news to everyone I know -- as I did. 
Why wouldn't I?


I have asked permission to upload the paper to LENR-CANR.org. I also 
told him there is a spelling error in it. I have not heard back yet.



I have received several queries on this matter from multiple sources 
from several countries in Europe and in the U.S. Something/someone 
triggered/launched a viral response.


Why viral? Why not just say it is the usual cold fusion grapevine 
discussing a result? After they uploaded the paper Focardi and Rossi 
must have told someone, who told someone else, who told me. I heard 
it from a half-dozen people. There are only a small number of people 
in this field, and we are bound to hear about anything that happens, 
sooner or later.


In a newsletter for palladium speculators, someone recently wondered 
if the upcoming ACS meeting will reveal any breakthroughs or 
surprises. I felt like telling them there are never any surprises 
in this field. We all hear about everything long before it is 
published. However, it is not good form to blab about these things 
because they might turn out to be a mistake. There is no harm in 
making a mistake, and no embarrassment, as long as you do not get 
excited and declare Eureka in public prematurely, before you realize 
you goofed.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper


Hold everything. I am wrong again. On p. 3 it says:

Some examples of the results obtained with this system (method A) in 
brief periods (1-1,5 hours) are reported in lines 1-3 of the Table 1.


So, for the first experiment, 0.2 kWh over 1 to 1.5 hours is 
somewhere between 133 to 200 W. So what the heck is going on in the 
other experiments?!?


Frankly, this is annoying. Why 1 - 1.5 hours anyway? Which is 
it?  1 or 1.5? Why not specify for each row? Why not report average power?


Does anyone here see anything about input power other than heater 
power? The patent mentions a Laser beam temperature measuring 
device: Raytheon, USA but I see nothing about about laser or heat stimulation.


I have read through this paper and patent several times. I find them 
poorly organized and inscrutable. Plus, it is not good form to mix in 
theoretical speculation with a description of the experiment or a 
patent's description of the device.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

Okay, I got a gracious response from Focardi and Rossi. I have permission to
upload the paper. A low level of input power is needed, but they would
prefer not to discuss the details yet. It will be described in a new
publication soon.

Let's give them time to get their act together and not put pressure on them
to reveal papers they are still working on. I think the first paper would
have benefited with more editing, especially by a native speaker of English.
The language gap is a real problem. I am reminded of that every time I write
a letter or paper in Japanese.

I still don't think you should mix theory and experiment in the same paper.
That's a style problem, not a language problem.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

2010-03-14 Thread Michel Jullian

Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work?

2010/3/14, Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com:
 Ladies and gentlemen,

 The truth is, I plead, to a large degree, ignorance of this FocardiRossi
 matter.

 It had been originally brought to my attention as a patent, and then I
 pointed out to the person it was merely a patent application and I said,
 So what, don't bother me.

 Even granted patents don't mean that the devices work as stated. Just look
 at Seth Putterman's patent for sonofusion.

 So here's my question for all you science hounds: Have FocardiRossi
 actually published a real paper or presented one at a science conference?

 Has the FocardiRossi paper/work been vetted, in any way, in the formal
 science channel or has it just been hyped up on some bogus Web site that is
 masquerading as some sort of Journal?

 Journal or Nuclear Physics? Really??? Can someone please tell me
 something about this?
 http://whois.domaintools.com/journal-of-nuclear-physics.com

 And can someone please explain why the good Dr. Melich, allegedly
 representing the entire DoD, is involved with this?
 http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?page_id=2

 And isn't there some mention in the paper of this having to do with the
 DoD yet the paper provides no details?

 And a Board of Advisers comprising the key authors of this paper? Is
 this a con or what?

 Will somebody puhleeze tell me that someone is not running a false flag to
 discredit Ni-H work.

 Will somebody puhleeze tell me that someone did not go to Focardi and Rossi
 and represent himself as the DoD and thereby test and validate inflated
 claims to set them up for a fall.

 Steve

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

2010-03-14 Thread Steven Krivit


At 02:35 AM 3/14/2010, you wrote:

Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work?


I don't think he would want to.

Have you been following the thread more closely than I?

Is there any support on this research such as a published paper or a 
conference presentation or is it just this blog site that is made to look 
like a journal?


And what kind of idiot uses this domain name 
http://whois.domaintools.com/journal-of-nuclear-physics.com


when one without hyphens is available and has NEVER been registered?
http://whois.domaintools.com/journalofnuclearphysics.com
(I'm sure someone will soon grab this domain, it's a great domain name)

SOMEBODY registered and used this name knowing full well that no such 
journal in the English language existed but that the Soviet Journal of 
Nuclear Physics does not have a Web site. 
http://journalseek.net/cgi-bin/journalseek/journalsearch.cgi?field=issnquery=0038-5506


Whoever registered the name is probably an American because of the 
California registration. It has been registered through a proxy service 
that keeps the identity of the domain owner private.


By using a name with hyphens, and of a similar journal that does not have 
its own web site, they avoid a direct confrontation with the actual 
journal, if it still exists.
But the journal may have been renamed to Physics of Atomic Nuclei 
http://www.phy.ornl.gov/divops/library/holdings.html


I wonder which of the people involved in journal-of-nuclear-physics.com are 
familiar with the Russian science scene and which of them might be 
conversant in Russian and who has been a frequent co-author on Russian LENR 
papers?


s

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

2010-03-13 Thread Michel Jullian

Rouge, red, rosso/rossi, thought it was a multilingual pun ;)

2010/3/13, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
 I wrote -- and I mean typed, not dictated:


 These rouge researchers don't make it any easier to trust them, do they?


 Also the rogue ones.

 A rouge researcher would be one who wears lipstick I suppose, like Sara
 Palin, who imagines herself going rogue.

 There is not much benefit to the complex orthography of English or Japanese,
 but it does make for hilarious mistakes!

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

2010-03-13 Thread Steven Krivit


Ladies and gentlemen,

The truth is, I plead, to a large degree, ignorance of this FocardiRossi 
matter.


It had been originally brought to my attention as a patent, and then I 
pointed out to the person it was merely a patent application and I said, 
So what, don't bother me.


Even granted patents don't mean that the devices work as stated. Just look 
at Seth Putterman's patent for sonofusion.


So here's my question for all you science hounds: Have FocardiRossi 
actually published a real paper or presented one at a science conference?


Has the FocardiRossi paper/work been vetted, in any way, in the formal 
science channel or has it just been hyped up on some bogus Web site that is 
masquerading as some sort of Journal?


Journal or Nuclear Physics? Really??? Can someone please tell me 
something about this?

http://whois.domaintools.com/journal-of-nuclear-physics.com

And can someone please explain why the good Dr. Melich, allegedly 
representing the entire DoD, is involved with this?

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?page_id=2

And isn't there some mention in the paper of this having to do with the 
DoD yet the paper provides no details?


And a Board of Advisers comprising the key authors of this paper? Is 
this a con or what?


Will somebody puhleeze tell me that someone is not running a false flag to 
discredit Ni-H work.


Will somebody puhleeze tell me that someone did not go to Focardi and Rossi 
and represent himself as the DoD and thereby test and validate inflated 
claims to set them up for a fall.


Steve

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

2010-03-12 Thread Michel Jullian

Hi Jones,

Thanks for the interesting story. According to Google the document you
quoted from is this DOD report:

http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdf

The link doesn't seem to be working right now, but the text remains
available via Google's cache:

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:aXtJ7qjancgJ:dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdf

The conclusion of the report is in fact quite positive about Rossi's
TE technology :

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Thermoelectric (TE) power generation results from electricity that is
induced in particular materials by a temperature differential. This is
known as the “Seebeck Effect.” Historically, the cost of
thermoelectric power generation has been high due to limitations in
material knowledge and associated processing issues. Recent technology
developments, based on advances in material science and advanced
manufacturing techniques, have demonstrated a high potential for
reduced production costs.

Leonardo Technologies Inc. (LTI) has demonstrated their thermoelectric
innovation as a cost-effective energy-producing alternative that is
efficient and environmentally benign. Initial testing of LTI’s
innovations demonstrate an approximate three-fold in-crease in energy
conversion and potentially a ten-fold decrease in fabrication cost per
kW of electrical generation capacity. It is projected that under mass
production, the cost per kW of thermoelectric devices could approach
that of combined-cycle gas central power plants, the least expensive
power generation alternative, at about $500/kW – with the added
economic benefit of no fuel costs.
...
The results of this study will assist the development of a
demonstration of LTI’s TE technology at a defense facility...

...so it's not clear to me that it affects the credibility of his
fusion report that badly. What affects it more in my mind is his
statement that he won't demonstrate anything publicly until he has a 1
MW device, why wait if he really has an Earth shattering 10 kW working
device?

In any case his claim that the DOD and DOE have looked at the
technology is supported by the composition of the Board of Advisers of
his strange self published online journal:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?page_id=2

BOARD OF ADVISERS:

Prof. Sergio Focardi (INFN – University of Bologna – Italy)
** Prof. Michael Melich (DOD – USA)
Richard P. Noceti, Ph. D. , richard.noc...@lt.netl.doe.gov **
Prof. Alberto Carnera (INFM – University of Padova – Italy)
Prof. Giuseppe Levi (INFN – University of Bologna – Italy)
Prof. Pierluca Rossi (University of Bologna – Italy)
Prof. Luciana Malferrari (University of Bologna – Italy)
Prof. George Kelly (University of New Hampshire – USA)
Prof. Stremmenos Christos (Athen University – Greece)

BTW I agree with you that the patent is very poorly written, have you
noted isothermal instead of exothermal in claim 1? And it doesn't
reveal anything that might be novel, hence the well deserved X rated
prior art in the international search report (an Arata patent). What
purpose can such a patent application serve?

Michel

2010/3/11 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net:
FWIW:

One more comment on Leonardo Technologies, Inc. and the past history of Dr
Andrea Rossi. This is important only in that it may affect the credibility
of the fusion report. Obviously, if the fusion RD were true in the apparent
COP, it would be an earth-shaking discovery. It is far better than any prior
NiH system which has been reported, but apparently there is a history here
which cannot be ignored.

LTI was incorporated as a response to the thermoelectric power generation
research (and patent) by Dr. Rossi. Dr. Rossi indicated that his devices
would produce 20 percent efficiencies, a vast increase from the current
science of 4 percent conversion of waste heat to electrical power.

Dr. Rossi believed that he could increase the physical size of the TE
Devices and maintain superior power generation. In furtherance of his
research, in early 2000, LTI had tests conducted at the University of New
Hampshire (UNH), Durham, NH, using a small scale LTI TEG Device.

Over a period of 7 days, the UNH power plant staff recorded voltage and
amperage readings every 1/2 hr. The TE Device produced approximately 100
volts and 1 ampere of current, providing 100 watts of power. After this
initial success, and a fire that destroyed his Manchester, NH location, Dr.
Rossi returned to Italy to continue the manufacture of the TE Devices.

In Italy, Dr. Rossi believed that LTI could manufacture more cost-effective
TE generating devices with lower labor and assembly costs. Accordingly, Dr.
Rossi engaged a subcontractor to fulfill the requirements of manufacturing
and assembly. Unfortunately, the Italian subcontractor was unable to provide
second-generation TE Devices with satisfactory power generation.

Nineteen of 27 TE Devices shipped to CTC, Johnstown, PA, were incapable of
generating

RE: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

2010-03-12 Thread Jones Beene

Michel,

 The conclusion of the report is in fact quite positive about Rossi's TE
...

Yes, but was that ten-year old experiment at UNH ever replicated? Not that I
can see, so ask yourself - why not? In the current milieu, the TEG is way
more valuable than the LENR work, in terms of getting it to market rapidly
and immediate financial impact, such as by retrofit to autos. Any LENR
product is a decade away from market due to lack of required engineering and
complexity.

Another caveat: the TEG may not scale-up (apparently). Is it simply a QM
effect only ? I would say the most important thing in 2010 is what is not
said. It appears that the TEG technology was dropped, or at least not
actively pursued when it is the prime corporate asset. 

That does not make sense, even if an advance was found in Ni Hydride. I have
been scanning through the ARPA-E recipients and have not found LTI although
there are a number of similar projects being funded in TEG - one almost next
door to them. Did they change their name to get funding? They do mention DoE
and not DARPA.

Plus, wrt the LENR results. I don't think competent scientists will actively
try to hide or avoid the significant (if not overwhelming) contribution of
prior art. In this case that comes from Arata and Mills for sure. Focardi
may be sore that he never got recognized adequately back in the
mid-nineties, but essentially Mills came first, and has both precedence and
more credibility than Focardi. That's the way it works, and he may feel
snubbed. 

Did you ever find Arata's name mentioned by Rossi or Focardi? How could any
good researcher remain blithely ignorant of Arata and his emphasis on
nanoparticles?

The nano-technology or A-Z is probably the key to the effect, but it was
discovered by them years ago - and not by Rossi.

Plus - there seems to be a *significant* conflict of interest with
Leonardo's (LTI) corporate mission with DoE now, as an administrator, and
the apparent lack of an actual grant for funding any fusion work of Rossi.
That could jeopardize the $95 million contract which is in place if he has
been shifting funds inappropriately.

Also - where is their actual lab ? It's not at the address where the Press
release says it is. Why is there no staff at the NH facility when Rossi
claims this is where the work is being performed ?

Many red flags, but when all is said and done - the one scenario that makes
the most sense is that Focardi and Rossi were able (apparently) to take the
Arata nanopowder finding to a higher and more robust energy level - only to
find that they cannot patent that breakthrough due to either Mills or Arata
or both.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

2010-03-12 Thread Jed Rothwell

Jones Beene wrote:

Plus, wrt the LENR results. I don't think competent scientists will actively
try to hide or avoid the significant (if not overwhelming) contribution of
prior art. In this case that comes from Arata and Mills for sure.

Well . . . some folks do this kind of thing. The best example is
Arata himself. He is an extremely competent scientist -- a brilliant,
world-class genius scientist -- but he claims that he is the only one
who has ever succeeded in producing a cold fusion reaction. All of
the others, starting with Fleischmann and Pons, have made inept and
obvious mistakes and their results are garbage, he says. He
claims that discovered cold fusion in the late 1940s but kept quiet
about it until Fleischmann and Pons came along with their obvious
mistake. In order to clear up the confusion, Arata decided to reveal
real cold fusion. It is unclear why he kept it secret so long. I
vaguely recall it was because the world wasn't ready for it yet but
that's what they all say, isn't it? Maybe I have him mixed up with
the Correas or the Methernitha cult.

The point is, you cannot judge a scientist's claims by looking at his
or her personality, personal behavior, or academic ethics. Arata
would drastically fail by these standards. But they simply do not
matter. His contributions stand on their own merits. They are not
degraded or less important because of his outrageous behavior. They
are also not degraded by what I consider his sloppy experiments and
poorly written papers. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonar.pdf

It is tough, but you have to look at a claim in isolation. As much as
humanly possible, you have exclude from your evaluation all of your
feelings regarding researcher's personality, behavior, or previous
criminal convictions (if any) or the fact that he is in jail, which
was where Joe Champion -- one of our friends in the lead-to-gold
alchemy business -- periodically resides.

These rouge researchers don't make it any easier to trust them, do they?

Regarding Arata, I hesitate to mention this but . . . of Arata's
supporters has published a cartoon about his discoveries. Toshiro
Sengaku brought this to my attention. The cartoon is sorta cute and
sorta horrifying. The deuterons fusing on p. 5 and producing
love-hearts of helium are cute. The politics on p. 9 are putrid. I am
kind of glad it is in Japanese and no, I will not translate it. You
can probably get the gist of it. See:

http://dokuritsutou.heteml.jp/newversion2/image2/kakuyugo/solidfusion-newtitle.pdfhttp://dokuritsutou.heteml.jp/newversion2/image2/kakuyugo/solidfusion-newtitle.pdf

Page 9 shows Arata upset when he realizes that Fleischmann and Pons
(shown in the thought bubble) are making a bogus claim. The little
cloud of steam coming from his head is Japanese comic-book
iconography indicating being upset, I would say. He is steamed as
we say in English.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

2010-03-12 Thread Jones Beene

Jed,

 

Thanks for the background on Arata. It is easy to miss that kind of
information when only looking at the published papers. 

 

Steamed indeed . Ha! What an egotist.

 

It is tempting to slide into a little politically incorrectness, and opine
that his temperament may be more typically Italian than the Italians .

 

. but let's don't go there.

 

Jones

 

. shows Arata upset when he realizes that Fleischmann and Pons (shown in the
thought bubble) are making a bogus claim. The little cloud of steam coming
from his head is Japanese comic-book iconography indicating being upset, I
would say. He is steamed as we say in English.

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

2010-03-12 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

Really poorly reported. The patent implies that it's just nickel and 
hydrogen, under pressure and heat. However, it also specifies Nickel 
62, which is under 3% natural abundance. But that's for reasons of 
avoiding radiation. The paper says The system on which we operate 
consists of Ni, in H atmosphere and in the presence of additives 
placed in a sealed container and heated by a current passing through 
a resistor.


Additives? What additives? It's tempting to say magic pixie dust. 
But I don't believe that they are necessarily making this up, I'm 
just noticing that, like a long line before them, they aren't 
disclosing what are quite likely critical details. It's not like 
nobody tried pressurizing and heating nickel and hydrogen before!


I'll get excited when someone completely independent replicates this. 
Until then, well, we've been burned too many times. Or not-burned, as 
the case was. Not even hot enough to burn.

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

2010-03-12 Thread Horace Heffner



On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Really poorly reported. The patent implies that it's just nickel  
and hydrogen, under pressure and heat. However, it also specifies  
Nickel 62, which is under 3% natural abundance. But that's for  
reasons of avoiding radiation. The paper says The system on which  
we operate consists of Ni, in H atmosphere and in the presence of  
additives placed in a sealed container and heated by a current  
passing through a resistor.


Additives? What additives? It's tempting to say magic pixie dust.  
But I don't believe that they are necessarily making this up, I'm  
just noticing that, like a long line before them, they aren't  
disclosing what are quite likely critical details. It's not like  
nobody tried pressurizing and heating nickel and hydrogen before!


I'll get excited when someone completely independent replicates  
this. Until then, well, we've been burned too many times. Or not- 
burned, as the case was. Not even hot enough to burn.


If there is a failure to fully disclose the invention, especially  
additives that are essential to the operation of the device, then the  
patent is not enforceable.  Further, if someone discovers what  
additional essential ingredients are required then they are free to  
obtain a patent that includes those ingredients.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

2010-03-12 Thread Jed Rothwell

I wrote -- and I mean typed, not dictated:


 These rouge researchers don't make it any easier to trust them, do they?


Also the rogue ones.

A rouge researcher would be one who wears lipstick I suppose, like Sara
Palin, who imagines herself going rogue.

There is not much benefit to the complex orthography of English or Japanese,
but it does make for hilarious mistakes!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper


I got that exactly backwards! I meant:

Output ENERGY is 1006.5 kWh, which is average POWER of 3.0 kW.

For crying out loud.

I wrote:

I have had some doubts about previous reports 
from Focardi, because they have not been 
independently replicated as far as I know.


This paper says these claims have been independently tested, on p. 4:

It is remarkable that similar results have been 
obtained in the factory of EON in Bondeno 
(Ferrara, Italy) in a test performed with ENEL 
spa on June, 25th 2009 and in another sery of 
tests made in Bedford, New Hampshire (USA) in a 
lab of LTI with the assistance of the DOE 
(november 19 2009) and of the DOD (November, 20, 2009).


I would like to see more technical detail and 
reports from these other places before I try to judge what's going on here.



Regarding this subject, Jones Beene earlier wrote:


The alchemist dream of transmutation to gold was proved in Italy in 2004

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CirilloDtransmutat.pdfhttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CirilloDtransmutat.pdf

 probably long before that, but anyway - with 
gold now way over $1000 per ounce, this could be 
the way to make LENR commercial,


 or not.


Dunno why this turned up today on Google. Maybe 
it is a test by Rothwell to see who is paying attention ;)


If I could make things turn up on Google I could 
make a fortune overnight. But they would soon find a way to stop me.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

There are a number of reasons to be extremely skeptical of this but I have
not followed the CMNS discussion, so there could be more to it than meets
the eye.

 

The patent is among the poorest written and drafted that I have ever seen.
It is essentially worthless in the USA but as for Europe, who knows. The
paper is better but far from convincing.

 

Given that Arata was doing the same thing nearly a decade ago with nickel
hydrogen, and given Mills' went through the so-call gas phase devices in
the late nineties, and given Bush/Eagleton - all of which are either
precedent or patented - how can they claim an novelty? Moreover, how can
they not mention them as prior art? Simple, Watson - they cannot fully
distinguish what they are doing from that earlier work - except that they
may have gotten better results. Most worrisome - have they failed to follow
the past history of the field?

 

Too bad for them, if they have gotten better results from an old invention -
as it may leave a large federally funded RD contract as the only way to
move ahead.

 

They already claim $100 million from DoE, but that contract, which is real,
is unrelated to the fusion experiments, and has deliberately been conflated
by Rossi's association with a company that contracts out administrative
work. Sources have said that not a dime of DoE money has been earmarked for
her patent. 

 

Bizarre claims and red flags everywhere.

 

Jones

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Several people have called this to my attention in the last week:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf 

Jones Beene pointed out the patent for this here:

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009125444
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009125444IA=IT2008000532DISPLAY=D
ESC IA=IT2008000532DISPLAY=DESC 

Apparently this has been a source of lively discussion at CMNS. Sources tell
me there is more to it than meets the eye, and not to dismiss it. The
claimed energy gains in Table 1 are extraordinary. The output/input ratio
for 6 runs was:

415, 205, 80, 197, 203, 179

Table 1 is confusing. I gather the first row shows total energy for one day,
May 5, 2008. Input was 0.2 kWh, and output was 83 kWh. That would be average
power of 3.4 kW (83 kWh / 24 hours). Row 4 appears to be for Feb. 17, 2009
through March 3, 2009. That's 14 days, or 336 hours. Output power is 1006.5
kWh, which is average energy of 3.0 kW.

I have had some doubts about previous reports from Focardi, because they
have not been independently replicated as far as I know. However, it is
difficult to imagine that such large ratios could be an error in
calorimetry.

They use 3 kinds of calorimetry, including flow calorimetry, which is
described on p. 3. They don't call it flow calorimetry and they do not
report critical parameters such as the flow rate and Delta-T, which is a
little annoying.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper


Jones Beene wrote:

There are a number of reasons to be extremely skeptical of this but 
I have not followed the CMNS discussion, so there could be more to 
it than meets the eye.


I have not followed CMNS either. But what I meant was that despite 
the fact that the patent is poorly written and the paper devoid of 
technical details, and the fact that  people on CMNS have expressed 
skepticism -- despite all this -- sources tell me there may be 
something to the claims after all. So don't jump to conclusions, say 
sources. Quoting the immortal Fats Waller: One never knows, do one?


There have been many claims of heat from Ni-H. Mengoli is a good one, 
and so is Montereali. Srinivasan thought he had something with the 
classic Mills experiments but he was unable to create the effect 
during an extended visit to SRI. (For many months, as I recall.)


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [

 Quoting the immortal Fats Waller: One never knows, do one?


... as long as they Ain't Misbehavin'

RE: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

Apparently there is an online blog to which Andrea Rossi, or someone from
Leonardo Technologies, or else it is from a PR firm, responds:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=58


BTW - I have been told that 'Andrea' is a name for both male and female in
Italy so it is not clear the gender of this person. 

Here is a recent post:

[On behalf of ] Andrea Rossi 
March 10th, 2010 at 10:23 AM 

I am answering to the comment of Daniele Cattani.
 
We are making a very hard work in Leonardo Corporation about this issue. We
are manufacturing a 1 MW reactor in the USA and, even if we are more
interested to produce energy in safe environment that in knowing about
H-Alice's adventures, we know the importance of a deeper knowledge of the
nuclear mechanisms, also to increase the efficiency of the reactors.
 
Nevertheless, as Daniele correctly says, the nuclear reactions are terra
incognita and we are opening our path with a machete through the jungle of
elementary particles whose nature is basically reduced to models but is
unknown in itself. And we are doing this without analogous experiences to
learn from, because the method and apparatus invented from Andrea Rossi has
not significant former achievements to feed from.

Daniele Princiotto, Leonardo Corp.

LinkedIn lists Daniele Princiotto as Owner: D.P.Informatica
(Computer  Network Security industry) Bologna, Italy

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper


I wrote:

However, it is difficult to imagine that such large ratios could be 
an error in calorimetry.


Let me amend that. It is impossible to imagine that such large ratios 
and such high absolute power can be an error. As Chris Tinsley said 
regarding the Fleischmann  Pons boil-off results, this is either 
real or these people are lying through their teeth. There is no 
middle ground. In the May 2008 experiment, input is 8 W and output is 
3,400 W. Obviously you can conform that by holding your hand over the 
cell. There is no chance anyone would confuse 8 W with 3,400 W.


At least, there does not appear to be any middle ground. People have 
criticized the paper, saying the authors seem untrustworthy and they 
come across as rank amateurs. I think the paper has too much theory 
and not enough actual detail about the calorimetry -- never mind the 
device itself. However, if it is real, it's real.


There have been many important discoveries in history that were 
poorly described and looked like amateur work, or like scams. 
Harrison's descriptions of his chronometer were hopelessly muddled, 
and that was one of reasons the device was delayed. (The main reason 
was political opposition from government scientists who were being 
paid a fortune to solve the problem by compiling lunar tables.)


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper


Jones Beene quoted Daniele Princiotto:


We are making a very hard work in Leonardo Corporation about this issue. We
are manufacturing a 1 MW reactor in the USA . . .


I do not conclude that these people are crackpot inventors, BUT . . . 
it is typical of such people that they try to make a 1 MW reactor as 
the first step. They seem to think that nothing less would have 
credibility, or commercial applications. In point of fact a 10 W 
generator would provide all the credibility you need, and there a 
surprising number of practical applications for such at thing, if it 
is reasonably robust.


Mills is also aiming big, for megawatt-scale reactors in the first 
stage. As a business strategy and political strategy to convince the 
public the effect is real, and to convince investors to invest . . . 
this is insane.


I have never been impressed by Mills' business acumen. Perhaps he 
knows something I don't know, but after all these years, I have not 
seen any evidence for that.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper