Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo
did you write this, Jed? What is a sparge test in this context? On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Exactly right. Rossi said this, very clearly. When he invited me, I said I wanted to do confirmation test, where I measure temperatures independently and do a sparge test with a short hose. He said no, he does not want any more tests until after the 1 MW demonstration.
Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I know quite what Rossi would have said: Too dangerous. I emptied it just now, so it's safe to hold this up, but water condenses inside the hose, because the steam cools, and eventually enough will build up that boiling hot water will spurt out of the hose, so I certainly cannot allow this. He did say something about it being dangerous. I do not think he gave the reason. Anyway, that is nonsense. There is nothing dangerous about it. Even if boiling hot water does spurt out that is no danger. Let it cool, get a sponge, and wipe it up. However, he did allow Lewan to have the hose drain into a bucket or something. Jed, he allowed sparging. He also allowed Lewan to hold it in the open air for while, in front of a black cloth. I do not recall how long, but it was a longer than Krivit's video. The bucket was too far from the reactor for a sparge test to measure enthalpy. By the time the steam got there it was mostly condensed. You need to use a short hose for this technique. Anyway, there is no doubt this cell produces steam, and as I said, with most tests input power is only enough to have it produce hot water, so there is no doubt it is producing anomalous heat. All of arguments here to the contrary are a waste of time. The only question is how much heat, and these tests are not adequate to determine that, so there is no point to debating it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo
At 12:40 AM 7/17/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: (Remember the skeptics evolution as a phenomenon is proved: 1. It's not true; 2. It may be true, but not important. 3. It's true and important, but we have always known it.) Here's the believers' progression: 1. The experiment proves it's true. 2. OK. Maybe it's not proved, but the experiment gives good evidence for it. 3. The experiment provides no evidence that it's true, but no one ever said it did. But we still know it's true, because we want it to be. Step 4 has been left out. 4. We told you so! Both of these pseudoskeptical (the first position isn't skeptical it's pseudoskeptical) and believing positions assume, the way I've now stated it, that the it turns out to be true. True even if the first experiment didn't prove it. We want it to be is a pseudoskeptic's view of believer motivations. The motivations of both groups are complex, but believer and pseudoskeptic are mirror images of each other. Neither position is true skepticism, because the pseudoskeptic is also a believer in his or her own rightness. You can see that in the first three pseudoskeptic positions. Each one believes that the PS's own analysis of the situation is superior to that of others. Usually, the it is not the experimental evidence itself, but some interpretation of it, heavily colored by belief in what is and is not possible. This, then, can create a feedback loop, where experimental evidence is itself rejected because of the belief in impossibility. The same feedback look can arise with direct belief in some new idea. Belief defends itself, that's how belief is different from operating hypothesis or general trust.
Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 12:40 AM 7/17/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: (Remember the skeptics evolution as a phenomenon is proved: 1. It's not true; 2. It may be true, but not important. 3. It's true and important, but we have always known it.) Here's the believers' progression: 1. The experiment proves it's true. 2. OK. Maybe it's not proved, but the experiment gives good evidence for it. 3. The experiment provides no evidence that it's true, but no one ever said it did. But we still know it's true, because we want it to be. Step 4 has been left out. 4. We told you so! The great thing about the hypothetical we told you so, for the believer, is that they can cling to this hope indefinitely. Both of these pseudoskeptical [yada, yada, yada]. I have no idea what you said there, but I admit, I didn't try very hard to understand it.
Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I know quite what Rossi would have said: Too dangerous. I emptied it just now, so it's safe to hold this up, but water condenses inside the hose, because the steam cools, and eventually enough will build up that boiling hot water will spurt out of the hose, so I certainly cannot allow this. He did say something about it being dangerous. I do not think he gave the reason. Anyway, that is nonsense. There is nothing dangerous about it. Even if boiling hot water does spurt out that is no danger. Let it cool, get a sponge, and wipe it up. I think he's afraid of getting scalded when what goes up comes back down. He could aim it at Krivit, of course, and get his revenge. Anyway, there is no doubt this cell produces steam, and as I said, with most tests input power is only enough to have it produce hot water, so there is no doubt it is producing anomalous heat. There is doubt. In this experiment, the input power was enough to produce steam, and Rossi got caught with his hand in the cookie jar (on the power control). So, I doubt very much that it is producing anomalous heat. What you mean is that you don't doubt it. You will, though.
Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo
At 06:33 PM 7/17/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Both of these pseudoskeptical [yada, yada, yada]. I have no idea what you said there, but I admit, I didn't try very hard to understand it. That's okay, Joshua, we expect this to be difficult for you and all pseudoskeptics. (And difficult for believers, as well.) Don't worry about it. You may at any time convert from pseudoskepticism to genuine skepticism. All it takes is dropping the obnoxious confidence in being right, and starting to listen and understand. It does *not* require accepting whatever the believers proclaim. That's just the flip side.
Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo
At 06:08 PM 7/15/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Having said that, I feel that Krivit should have paid more attention to some technical details. He should have made more observations and reported more facts, such as whether Rossi placed the feedwater reservoir on a weight scale, and if so, how much did it weigh before and after. This would not have proved the claim, but it would have bolstered it. Also, when Rossi removed the hose from the drain, Krivit might have asked him to hold it before the camera for 5 minutes or so. I know quite what Rossi would have said: Too dangerous. I emptied it just now, so it's safe to hold this up, but water condenses inside the hose, because the steam cools, and eventually enough will build up that boiling hot water will spurt out of the hose, so I certainly cannot allow this. However, he did allow Lewan to have the hose drain into a bucket or something. Jed, he allowed sparging. In April. Too bad Lewan didn't do some measurements of the sparging! Lewan assumed that the temperature, slightly above boiling as he found by boiling water in an open pot, indicated dry steam. Big mistake! (That's even worse than assuming you can manage the trick with an RH meter.) It isn't easy viewing a thing like this and making sound observations, especially while holding a camera, so you have to sympathize with Krivit. Sure. I do. He really needed to have a cameraperson. Rossi is not very good at demonstrations, in my opinion. That is no reflection on his skill as an engineer. Doing a demonstration is like teaching classes or writing technical manuals. Many people who are good at what they do are hopeless when it comes to explaining or teaching what they do. That's why companies have both engineers and technical writers, in different cubicals. You have to maintain the separation factor, by the way. Yeah. Get the tech writers too close to the engineers, they will write like engineers, for engineers. That might be okay if your customers are all engineers. Maybe. Maybe not. Basically, the tech writer should write for the most ignorant customer possible, then the engineers should review it for accuracy. Repeat cycle until it is both a manual for the Compleat Idiot, and accurate. Really, that's what they should be doing on Wikipedia, I argued for that, for setting up a protected class of editor, anyone who claims to be an expert. Claim to be an expert, great! No controversial article editing for you, you are COI. But we want your advice on the Talk page, and we will carefully consider it and check it out and verify it with sources, and we will maintain this process. You are allowed to advocate your point of view, on the talk page, but, please, be nice. Remember that most people aren't as smart as you, please be generous with them. We are writing this encyclopedia for Randy from Boise, in fact. They didn't get it, obviously. Since they block people for being COI (having a Conflict of Interest), they thought I was suggesting that experts be blocked. The contrary, actually, but, see, I didn't have a tech writer to explain this to these Compleat Idiots.
Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: 2011/7/15 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: I must say, I'm appalled at how much time has been wasted on inadequate demonstrations. This is surprising considering that anyone here has never said anything that those demonstrations has any scientific relevance. That is simply because they can be easily faked with hidden power source. These are just demonstrations, not scientific validations. And the purpose of them was that Rossi let some people to observe, while he was doing his own tests for the E-Cat units. Only January demonstration was actual demonstration. But the January demonstration is no better than the others. There is an interesting evolution of believers' assertions as a phenomenon becomes less credible. (Remember the skeptics evolution as a phenomenon is proved: 1. It's not true; 2. It may be true, but not important. 3. It's true and important, but we have always known it.) Here's the believers' progression: 1. The experiment proves it's true. 2. OK. Maybe it's not proved, but the experiment gives good evidence for it. 3. The experiment provides no evidence that it's true, but no one ever said it did. But we still know it's true, because we want it to be.
Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo
4. scientific proof unworthy of my time, just wait a bit to see big customers buying my huge power units in October (well, maybe November...)
Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo
2011/7/15 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: I must say, I'm appalled at how much time has been wasted on inadequate demonstrations. This is surprising considering that anyone here has never said anything that those demonstrations has any scientific relevance. That is simply because they can be easily faked with hidden power source. These are just demonstrations, not scientific validations. And the purpose of them was that Rossi let some people to observe, while he was doing his own tests for the E-Cat units. Only January demonstration was actual demonstration. But for some people it seems to be difficult to understand, but instead they are wasting countless of words, for inventing ridiculous arguments how demonstrations are scientifically inadequate. Of course they are inadequate, because they can be faked simply hiding a hydrogen bottle into that hollow wooden stand where E-Cats are mounted! –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo
Jouni Valkonen wrote: These are just demonstrations, not scientific validations. And the purpose of them was that Rossi let some people to observe, while he was doing his own tests for the E-Cat units. Only January demonstration was actual demonstration. Exactly right. Rossi said this, very clearly. When he invited me, I said I wanted to do confirmation test, where I measure temperatures independently and do a sparge test with a short hose. He said no, he does not want any more tests until after the 1 MW demonstration. He said he does not have time for such tests. That is reasonable. It does take all day. He also said that as a matter of policy he wants no more tests. I do not understand why he thinks this is a good policy, but it is his decision. What he showed Krivit was only intended to show how the thing works, not to prove that it works. This resembles a video or computer simulation more than a physics experiment. It is fine for that purpose. Having said that, I feel that Krivit should have paid more attention to some technical details. He should have made more observations and reported more facts, such as whether Rossi placed the feedwater reservoir on a weight scale, and if so, how much did it weigh before and after. This would not have proved the claim, but it would have bolstered it. Also, when Rossi removed the hose from the drain, Krivit might have asked him to hold it before the camera for 5 minutes or so. It isn't easy viewing a thing like this and making sound observations, especially while holding a camera, so you have to sympathize with Krivit. Rossi is not very good at demonstrations, in my opinion. That is no reflection on his skill as an engineer. Doing a demonstration is like teaching classes or writing technical manuals. Many people who are good at what they do are hopeless when it comes to explaining or teaching what they do. That's why companies have both engineers and technical writers, in different cubicals. You have to maintain the separation factor, by the way. - Jed
