Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I do not understand what you have in mind here. Nature allows us to do > some things and not others. We have to work with what nature allows, not > what we would wish for in an ideal universe.[...] > > Obviously with more engineering R&D a self-sustaining Rossi reactor could > be made. > How is that so obvious, after your song and dance about what nature allows. I think it's obvious now, that if it is triggered by heat, and it makes heat, it's a matter of controlling how much heat dissipates to make it self-sustaining. And he's claimed 100 hours of self-sustaining already. That's enough for a whiz-bang demo. > It would not prove anything the present test does not prove. Mary Yugo > would insist it is fake. Robert Park would ignore it. Why bother? Just use > a different watt meter next time and all remaining questions vanish as > surely as they would with a self-sustaining reactor. > > > Well, that's not consistent with your previous statements about the need for an isolated self-sustaining device that remains palpably hotter than ambient as a demo that could not be refuted. I think that's right, but it just never appears, even though cold fusion is supposed to have an energy density a million times that of dynamite.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:18 PM, David Roberson wrote: > > > The best proof is one that has the least possibility of error. > Or the least possibility of error that favors the ecat, or the least possibility of tampering. An isolated ecat eliminates input tampering. A heated tank of water eliminates output tampering. Heating an isolated tank of water of sufficient volume to sufficient temperature with an isolated device is pretty much iron-clad, as long as the isolation can be transparently verified. > Every complication that is added to the setup results in many more issues to question by the skeptics. Not true if the complications allows disconnection from the mains, or allows manifest integration of the heat. > The technique used by the testers of the ECAT is good enough for any reasonable scientist to accept Only if you define reasonable as true believer. > You fail to realize that there is no way what so ever to meet their requirements since they do not believe LENR is possible. An isolated device heating an isolated tank of water in an isolated location would meet all the skeptics' requirements. Anyway, as I said, you can't possibly think it will ever be practical, if you think skeptics cannot be convinced. > They have failed to prove their position entirely, Also the believers have failed to prove theirs...
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote: > >> >> > Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy > without stopping would be pretty damn convincing. > > > Nice to see you can envision a demo that would convince skeptics. Unfortunately the actual demos don't ever get better. They never approach this sort of level. There is always talk of self-sustaining, but it is never reached, in a public demo.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > There was a time when this field desperately needed a standalone self > powered reactor to prove the reaction is real. That is because absolute > power was low, ranging from 5 to 100 W. However, now that Rossi has > developed high-powered reactors ranging from 500 to . . . 1 MW (I guess?) > the need for standalone reactors is reduced. > Nonsense, the absence is all the more suspicious. With a thermal-to-thermal COP of 2 or more, it should be a piece of cake to make it self-sustaining. That he hasn't most likely means the claims are bogus. > The only way these results could be wrong would be if Rossi has somehow found a way to fool a watt meter. If he is capable of doing that he is also capable of making something that looks like a self-sustaining demonstration but is not. Disagree. The latter is not in the same league.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > > Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his > tea. > > If you believe Rothwell and Roberson, skeptics will never have to concede, because no application of cold fusion is obvious enough to make them believe it. Therefore, there will be no crow, or tea, on the menu. Of course the premise is nonsense. But the last sentence is still almost certainly true.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > If the device cannot self-power, it is still valuable with a lower COP, > the proverbial hot water or space heater - > A COP of 3 is not useful if the electricity was made with fossil fuels at an efficiency of 1/3. That's a wash.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > If it is real it is the most important advance in technology since the > discovery of fire. If the scientific community is convinced it is real, > every industrial corporation and university will be hard at work on this. > ~$100 million per day will devoted to it. > > > Huh. That's what the skeptics say. I thought true believers thought that it was being suppressed because the mainstream hates cldan and abundant energy and challenges to the status quo. I'll hang on to that quote the next time conspiracy theories rear their ugly head.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > WHY are you so certain that wattmeters do not work?!? > You know that's not the objection. > There is no chance Rossi can fool one, and if the people doing the test have any doubt about that, they can bring a portable generator. Would that they had. > To put it another way, if you do not trust the wattmeter, why would you trust the IR camera or thermocouple? If Rossi can fool a wattmeter he can fool any instrument. What would he fool with an isolated device? And he couldn't fool a mercury thermometer to measure the temperature of a tank of water, if it was brought by a skeptic to a neutral location.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > > Portable generator is also fine and even better, because it leaves very > little room for tricks and doubt. But after 10 or so demonstrations we have > had only one portable generator and that also was brought by Rossi. > > And it had the same output as the claimed ecat.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Nothing in the recent test was brought by Rossi. This test was a hands-off > "black box" test, exactly what the skeptics have been demanding. It seems > you will not take "yes" for an answer. > > > So much nonsense. The test was running when they arrived in December, and the instruments were the same in March. In fact the ir camera, and the power meter were the same as used in the various experiments reported in 2012. Rossi's fingerprints are on every aspect of this test.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jouni Valkonen wrote: > > >> Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and >> he is as bad as Rossi. And he brought most of the instruments. >> > > I see. And these other co-authors are so stupid they do not even notice > the equipment is not working? > Probably. Essen was stupid enough to think a humidity probe could determine steam quality, or that visual inspection of steam was enough. > Even though they calibrated the wattmeter with a resistor? Even though they stepped a blank cell through a calibration? Different power regimen. Doesn't count. > So you are saying Levi wants to destroy his own reputation for no reason, for no possible benefit. There may be benefit, and he has retained plausible deniability, so the risk is small. > Because there is not slightest chance he or Rossi will get away with this. Sooner or later someone will bring an instrument that reveals the scam. Much later is possible though. BLP has gone for 20 years+ with many claims and no product and no revealing of a scam. > Also, how did Rossi and Levi manage to make modern integrated circuit instruments work wrong? Watch these videos if you didn't like the cheese video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD7DzTIFJdU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KMLmpC7-Ls http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1eMryiU1ro They're not about faking power, but show some amazing electronics fakes.
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:55 PM, David Roberson wrote: > Why not give a direct answer to a direct question. Do you agree that the > COP is greater than 1? Yes or no? > > > Read the reply again, with particular attention to the first word. I would have thought that elaboration was a good way to advance the discussion, but apparently you prefer a kind of cross-examination to a discussion. I don't claim to be certain of anything, but I am highly skeptical of a COP > 1, though there might be some amount of chemical heat produced in that cylinder. > -Original Message- > From: Joshua Cude > To: vortex-l > Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:23 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat > test > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:44 AM, David Roberson wrote: > >> Josh, your entire theory will be shot if you acknowledge that the COP is >> greater than 1. Are you now ready to accept this condition? >> >> >> > No. The only thing you seem to be able to do is miss the point. > > The claimed COP is 3. That means that even if the claim is right, it's > far from ready for industrialization, given that electricity is produced > with 1/3 efficiency. > > So, as I said, I hardly think he's looking at the final version of the > power supply when the ecat is still completely inadequate. And so this > excuse for using 3-phase is as much nonsense as all the other excuses with > sub-gauss and sub mK magnetic field and temperature oscillations. > > > >
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:59 PM, David Roberson wrote: > No reason for any of your issues is given except that there is no reason > that you are aware of to do what makes sense to most other engineers and > scientists on the list. > 3-phase is not needed. He ran higher power steam cats without it, and none of the excuses given make sense. And are there scientists other than Storms, on the list? The actual reason for the Dec run is most likely a holdover from the 2012 hot cat experiments, in which inputs up to 5 kW were used, and an ordinary line would not have been enough. But for the March run, they introduced a new power supply, and planned from the outset to run low power, so single phase would have worked, but maybe made deception more difficult. > We do not have an problem with any of the design issues that Rossi has chosen. Three phase power is common in applications. Not applications with less than 1 kW resistive loads. > Good true RMS power meters are used for the input power measurement. They are good for ordinary applications, but not when there is suspicion of tampering.
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson wrote: > I admit that I do not believe that the magnetic field is important in this > case. > I am very pleased to see that some progress is being made. > It is not too close to zero with this particular geometry Well, the particular geometry is not completely obvious, but if they are helical coils, then yes, it would be close to zero in the vicinity of the reactor. > and if you recall the tops and bottoms of the resistor coil are very close to the core tube. Close, but off axis, and so while the field would be stronger, it would still be very weak. Anyway, if it were magnetic field, a very strong non-uniformity would be observed, with much more heat near the ends, but wasn't in the Dec or March runs. You need to admit an error when you make it if you intend to appear knowledgeable and not full of it. I did not make an error, and true believers will always think honest skeptics like me are full of it. I accept that. >
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:17 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > If you genuinely want an explanation of how the eCAT is positive feedback, > which Dave is trying to do, backed up by his model, then it requires > following a line of reasoning. > Wrong discussion. The question of COP > 1 here arose in the context of industrialization, not in the explanation for controlling positive feedback. > Dave is NOT asking you for an acceptance that Rossi’s device does have COP>1; he is only asking that we temporarily accept that condition, and follow the reasoning from there. That's exactly what I did in the other context. I said, *even if* the COP were 3, it wouldn't be enough for industrialization. And then 2 people pounced on me, suggesting I was admitting that the COP was 3. > Why are you afraid to do that? I'm not. That's exactly what I am doing. In the feedback system, I argue that if the COP were 3 (or especially 6), then removing the external heat would not quench it. And if it were 3 or 6, it would be easy to make it self-sustain by controlling the heat loss with insulation and regulated cooling.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > The effects of heat and the use of heat to control chemical and nuclear > reactions is well established. > > > Perhaps, but elsewhere I asked for an example where the addition of heat is used to control a positive thermal feedback system, especially one in which the external heat is several times *below* the heat produced by said reaction, and none were offered. Do you have an example?
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:35 AM, David Roberson wrote: > Applying more heat to make it stop is not what he does. He ceases to > apply the excess drive heat to make it stop. This is 180 degrees > different. The extra drive power to the resistors is added to the internal > power during the time the device is heating up and hence gaining > temperature. When that source is quickly removed, the positive feedback > direction becomes reversed and the device begins to cool. > > Except there are many reports in which the power is said to be stable, and the measured temperature is stable.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:44 AM, David Roberson wrote: > The group at moletrap has a hobby of trying to debunk anything that they > do not understand. You should have realized by now that these clowns can > not admit when they are shown in error to keep up appearances of > understanding these systems. They know when they are found wrong, but fail > to state it publicly. > > This would be funny if it were not tragic for these groups to be possibly > delaying the introduction of life giving discoveries such as LENR. One day > they will be shown completely wrong and will crawl under a rock to avoid > blame. > I doubt that will happen. So far, they are batting 1000, while Sterling Allan is batting zero.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:07 AM, David Roberson wrote: > > Cude and the others of this group can not accept that LENR is anything > except for a scam. > Not true in my case. I think most of LENR research is not a scam; it is probably just pathological science. But I don't even rule it out completely. I just find the evidence far too weak to be convincing, and in the absence of good evidence, based on very strong evidence that it should not occur, I remain highly skeptical, as I am of perpetual motion and dowsing and telepathy and so on. > This position explains why they 'know' that there must be some form of > trick being propagated by Rossi. > Again, that doesn't apply to me. I think cold fusion is extremely unlikely not only because it is contrary to expectations, but because if Rossi's claims were valid, unequivocal proof would be very easy to stage. So, I consider alternative explanations, including possible deception, far more likely.
Re: [Vo]: Interesting Information Contained in Output Temperature Curve Shape
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:57 PM, David Roberson wrote: > There is a wealth of information contained within the shape of the output > temperature curve associated with operation of the ECAT. > That's total speculative and nonsensical over-interpretation. It's based in the first place on the assumption that the power is constant during the "on" phase and zero in the "off" phase, but if that's what it is, why would Rossi have forbidden measurement of the actual wave to the ecat during the live run? He permitted measuring the power to the ecat during the blank run. Then they say it's the same, except for the turning off, but don't allow measurement. Again, why? He's told us what it is, but it can't be measured. The most obvious explanation is that he's concealing additional power input during the "off" cycle. The exact shape of the power cycle is completely unknown. If the particular details of the power input are proprietary, and it's not measured, you can't conclude anything from the output waveform, beyond that it has the same periodicity as the input power fluctuation. The "on" portion may not be flat, and the "off" may not be zero or flat. Otherwise, there would be no reason to disallow their measurement. Even if your assumptions of the input were correct, your interpretation of the inflection point is far too vague and unspecific to mean anything to me. Your spice model may give you all the results you want, but your descriptions of what's happening are far from clear.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, David Roberson wrote: > No problem, I will meet you here in a couple of years and we can compare > notes. > Good, but I was hoping you'd be able to tell us now if you might get a little skeptical if the hot cat has a similar fate that the steam cat has seen in the last 2 years. If it has come to nothing in that time, will you be so confident? > I assure you that I can speak to any of the objections that you have provided they are not totally out of reality. That's your argument? You assure me that you have one? Mostly you ignore my objections and speak to someone else's and repeat your own unsupported claims. > Lets start with one of your choice regarding the many heat generation issues. How about how a small amount of heat can control a much larger amount? Are you interesting in an explanation or do you want to keep stating things that can be shown wrong? You haven't shown anything to be wrong. And if you have an explanation for controlling positive thermal feedback with heat, why don't you just give it already, instead of repeatedly saying you will give it. > Or, how about my favorite recent issue about how DC flowing due to rectification in the load Someone else's argument. Address my points when you respond to my posts, or it's very inefficient.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:13 PM, David Roberson wrote: > I am attempting to keep you form getting banned since I want to use you to > clear up a number of issues. It is hoped that you will go back to the > other skeptics and then set them straight. > > > Garbage. You don't need anyone else to present an argument. Just post your best. You're free to go over to other forums and direct them to your words of wisdom.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:25 PM, David Roberson wrote: > Maybe we are making headway in this discussion. Can I assume that you are > now saying that the hot cat can actually produce heat by some unknown > process? So far it is not clear that you accept this premise. > > For heaven's sake. You piddle along asking stupid questions to avoid actually addressing my objections. Let me spell this out for you. I am skeptical of the ecat, partly because *if* it worked as he claims with a thermal-to-thermal COP of 3 or 6, (1) it would be easy to make it self-sustain (possibly with thermostatically controlled cooling), and yet he doesn't, and (2) it would be difficult to control with the addition of heat. What I said was that it is possible to conceive of a situation in which one could control positive thermal feedback with adding heat, particularly if the external heat were concentrated and at a higher temperature -- think flames to sustain charcoal briquets when they are being lit. But the hot cat uses external heat that is more diffuse and at a lower temperature than the heat from the reaction, so it is very difficult to imagine -- think controlling glowing embers with a space heater held nearby. And even if it were possible, it's the last way any sane person would do it. If the thing produces heat, and there's a danger of runaway, the obvious way to control it is with thermostatically controlled cooling. The claim that he needs heat to control it is such an obvious excuse to allow him to add heat, I'm amazed true believers buy into it. So, no, I think it highly unlikely that the hot cat is actually producing heat by an unknown process. But that's totally irrelevant to the question of whether it's plausible to use heat to control it *if it were producing heat*. Do you understand the concept of a hypothetical? > Then, are you agreeing that DC current flowing in the primary due to rectification … I didn't follow the dc discussion you're talking about, and I don't follow what you're saying about it here. But that's not the point. I don't believe we could enumerate every possible way to trick those meters, even if we had a decent report about how things were connected and where the measurements were made, which we don't. But the way to exclude tricks is to take the control of the experiment away from the suspected deceiver. Give open access to the hot cat under whatever necessary supervision. This test was the furthest thing from that, and it used unnecessarily complex input, a severely inadequate device to measure the input if there was suspicion of deception, and an indirect way to measure the heat output, when much more direct and visual methods are available. > I have not personally been following the energy density so I must leave that discussion to those with more knowledge. No one really knows exactly how LENR works including me so that is unfair to ask of me. And you don't see a double standard here? You said that anyone unqualified to describe how a deception might work is not allowed to speculate that deception might be occurring based on sadly inadequate measurements and scrutiny, And yet you say you are not qualified to explain how such a high power density is possible without melting the nickel, or how nuclear reactions can happen in the first place, and yet that doesn't stop you from speculating -- nay practically guaranteeing -- that they are happening. You know, there would be a very easy way to at least show that the heat is coming from the central cylinder (if it were), just by putting a thermocouple on it and outside the resistor radius. But of course, they didn't do that either, did they?
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:08 AM, David Roberson wrote: > Josh, once you understand how the ECAT uses heat for control you will > realize that the heat can not be applied continuously. Well, you're gonna have to explain it if you expect me to understand it. And then you're gonna have to explain how the December hot cat used continuously applied heat, and worked for over 100 hours. And how the steam cats were all at constant temperature. And how some of the steam cats allegedly self-sustained for 4 hours, or the hotcat self-sustained for more than 100 hours back in August or July 2012. Or you're gonna have to suspect Rossi was less than honest in some of those demos, and that would make him suspicious in this one. > Please take time to study what I have been and am currently writing so that you will not keep making this statement when it is not accurate. I haven't been able to read everything. Did I miss where you explained something? Because all I've seen is a few vague and unjustified paragraphs that in themselves explain squat. > Remember, continuous heat input to the ECAT results in thermal run away. Except when it doesn't, I guess, as in the examples listed above.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > ** > > Yes it was a poor analogy, but so what? Cude’s analysis is wrong no matter > how much he obfuscates and by jumping on a poor analogy – he does not gain > credibility. > > ** > Which analogy is that? I was suggesting there was no analogy in which heat is used to control a positive thermal feedback. > Yes - the ICE is not a good analogy to ECat but in contrast ICF is an adequate metaphor – which is why he avoids ICF of course. In ICF, the goal is to reach a situation where each pellet self-sustains -- i.e. ignites. That is expected when the heat produced by fusion that stays within a pellet is equal to the heat added to initiate fusion. That point has been reached in the ecat, but it has not been reached in ICF, so my objection does not apply there. > Subcritical fission is also a good metaphor No, it's not, because in that case, they don't control large heat with smaller heat. They control fission reactions with neutrons. The neutrons produced by the reactions themselves are necessarily fewer, or of a less favorable energy than the external neutrons. So, there is no neutron profit, and therefore it is subcritical. But there could be an energy profit, although it's not clear it will be realized in practice. > The ECat can indeed be self-sustaining in single or in multiple units, according to the inventor. Right, and the repeated claims without demonstration makes it suspicious. > The electrical input provides *control* and prevents runaway by permitting a lower mass of active material. Well, that's his excuse, but my objection stands. If 360 W from outside the reactor is enough to initiate the reaction, it seems implausible that 1.6 kW produced inside the reactor would not sustain it. > Rossi uses electricity to make heat as part of ongoing phase-change cycling process [wild speculation deleted] The temperature was stable in the Dec hot cat. > Apparently phase-change cycling is too difficult a topic for Cude to understand. True. Your explanations sound like word salad to me. Now, some of Hawking's words read like that to me too. So you may be another Hawking. But in any case, I don't benefit from it. You're out of my league.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> >> But I think you misunderstood. I was not referring to new science >> theories there. I was saying that it's common sense that if Rossi's claims >> were being accepted by the majority, there would be huge excitement. >> >> >> >> > > Not necessarily. Sometimes people act in accordance with the rule "Once > bitten, twice shy". > > > But I'm referring to the time where they have overcome shyness on the second round; that is, where the "claims are accepted by the majority". Once that happens there will be huge excitement. So I am arguing precisely that they have *not* accepted it, probably because they are twice shy. Others were arguing I could not know that it was not widely accepted. I still think it's common sense.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > No, you don't. Plenty of ICEs (outboards, motorcycles) run without >> batteries. Car engines would run without batteries too, unless they use >> some kind of electronic fault detection that shuts it down without a >> battery. But the spark doesn't need a battery. And even with a battery, >> it's still self-sustaining. It's not a valid point. >> > > It's a simple point -- some engines (many engines; most engines?) require > a secondary source of power to control the cycle. > No, any ICE can run without a battery (except for artificial fault detection), and a battery is not a secondary source of power. The battery holds the same amount of energy when you shut the engine down as it did when you started it. So, even if you want to think of the battery helping to control something, all the energy in the battery, beyond a short time after it's installed or recharged after you left the lights on, is put there from the engine. The engine supplies the power that controls it. That's self-sustaining buy any definition. Anyway, if it serves some purpose for you, that's fine, but I was asking if there was a system that uses an *external* *heat* source to control a source of heat. That's not it. If an ecat were to use a battery which was charged by the ecat, that would be self-sustaining too.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > But the ecat just uses electricity to make heat. So if the ecat already >> makes heat, it should self-sustain on that. Like combustion. >> > > I passed over this point too quickly. One question is why in Rossi's > device the heat generated by the reaction would not be sufficient to > sustain the reaction, as in combustion, without some kind of external > drive. This does seem like an odd requirement. > > Giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt, the fact that an > external stimulus is required in the form of resistance heating (also heat, > as has been pointed out), this seems to indicate that one of two phenomena, > or both, would need to be occurring: > >- The general area of the reaction is somewhat localized, and the >normal thermal gradient that would lead heat to dissipate from that >location must be countered from outside of it by the resistance heaters, so >that sufficient heat is retained in that area. > > Right. External heat would affect the temperature gradient. But remember it took only a fraction of the external 360 W to cause the reaction power to initiate and increase to 1.6 kW, so it seems implausible that the 1.6 kW would not be enough to sustain it. - > The reaction depends upon a flux of heat, and not simply elevated an temperature on its own. Heat is random motion, so it's hard to see how at the site of the potential reaction the direction of the flux would make a difference, and rate of the flux would be far higher at 1.6 kW than at 360 W.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > There is a third possibility as well. The reaction is localized, and it > depends upon an elevated temperature to kick off. But the local region is > destroyed by the reaction, so you have apply heat once more to initiate the > reaction in other parts of the charge. > But again 1.6 kW from within can do this more efficiently than 360 W from outside.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 3:22 PM, David Roberson wrote: > Eric, > > The resistive heating requirement is to be able to reverse the > temperature excursion at the proper time by removing the extra input. > Constant heat input will result in the destruction of the device when > useful output power is generated. > > Except when it doesn't like in the December hot cat, and all the steam cats.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:10 PM, David Roberson wrote: > Eric, > > Model 1 appears to be more in line with what I suspect is happening > except for the explanation of the lack of external heat for control issue. > You need to consider that the peak heat power being generated inside the > core is only about 2 times greater than the resistor heating required to > control it at the turn around point. Rossi has stated this on several > occasions and it matches my model. > > But it's not consistent with the December hot cat, in which case the overall COP was 6, and as I've argued, less than half of the input power will reach the core, the rest directly heating the outer ceramic. So, in that case, you probably have at least a peak power in the core at least 10 times larger that the external heat that is controlling it. > When such a large percentage of the net power at that node is taken away abruptly, a turn around in temperature direction occurs. This is a complicated positive feedback system where a large fraction of the internally generated heat is being absorbed by the thermal mass of the device. Enough external heat is removed to force the core to be "starved". That reverses the temperature path. Once reversed, the positive feedback works in a manner that accelerates the falling core temperature toward room. Could you provide the temperature dependence of the reaction rate and the heat loss that would produce such an effect. And also explain how the December hot cat was stable with constant input power. > If you are very good, or lucky, you can reverse the core at just below an optimum point which will allow the temperature to languish there for an extended time before it begins it rapid decent. This is how you achieve a high value of COP. The core has a lot of time during which it puts out large values of heat energy before requiring a refresh drive pulse. The drive remains off for a longer time while the high temperature lingers. > Does this help to explain the operation according to my model? Not to me. It's all just hand-waving. Could you quantify things a little? And explain why constant power was used in December.
Re: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:21 AM, David Roberson wrote: > I have requested that Cude or any others interested in finding the truth > construct a similar model and prove me wrong. > I never made any claims about dc rectification. I said that the experimental design leaves opportunities for deception, one example of which is the cheese video. There are surely others that talented electrical engineers could design that would fool that cabal of trusting dupes, and would be impossible to deduce from a poorly written account of the experiment. I think it's a mug's game because it assumes that every possible method of deception can be excluded. There are obviously ways to reduce the possibilities of deception, but the best way is to have people *not* selected by Rossi arrange all the input power and its monitoring, make it as simple as possible (2 lines) and preferably from a finite source (generator), and use a method that visually integrates the heat, like heating a volume of water. It's just such nonsense to imagine that Rossi has a technology that will replace fossil fuels, and he can't arrange an unequivocal demonstration. > This [cooperative analysis of a particular deception scheme] is the way science should be conducted and I hope that it represents the future of cooperation between all parties concerned. If you think *science* is about second guessing someone's demo, and trying to sleuth whether or not he cheated, then you have no clue. Science at its best is about disclosing discoveries so others can test them. Even if Rossi needs to keep his sauce secret, the need to guess and speculate about what's going on, and to make models to determine something that *someone already knows* is not science. It's idiocy. And yes, I freely participate in this idiocy, but at least I don't call it science.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:36 PM, David Roberson wrote: > This is a good start Josh. I think I can explain that to you since you > seem to be a pretty sharp guy. > Thank you Mr Roberson for that kind compliment. Unfortunately it also takes an explanation that is realistic and a sharp guy to explain it. And you seem to be a guy who thinks he's a lot sharper than he is. I wish you'd look at my much simpler intuitive argument, and tell me what's wrong with it. For example, if 360 W from the outside can trigger the reaction, why would 1.6 kW from the inside not sustain it? I get that the basic claim is that the reaction power alone is not enough to maintain the reaction, so it decays toward zero, but the sum of the external and reaction powers is enough to make it grow, even to a temperature at which runaway occurs. But the problem is that it seems unlikely that a plausible temperature dependence of the reaction rate and of heat loss would produce that situation, given the constraints represented by the claimed observations. In particular, the much higher output power compared to the input power. While they claim a COP of 3 or 6 for the device, that would correspond to a much higher COP for the fuel itself, because much less than half of the input heat would reach the fuel. As I see it, you only need to postulate how the reaction rate depends on temperature, and how the heat loss depends on temperature to determine what will happen to the system. For a given input power and temperature, you can then calculate the net power (total power produced by the external plus reaction minus the heat loss). If that's positive, it will get hotter, if negative it will cool down. When it encounters a change in sign it will stabilize, A sign change (or zero net power) occurs when the heat loss is equal to external power plus the reaction power, much like the sun is stable with it's heat loss balancing its reaction rate. If the net power is positive, and it grows with temperature, then you get a runaway condition. In my brief tests I only used simple functions (of the temperature for the reaction rate, and of the temperature difference from ambient for the heat loss), and if the system is designed to be stable at 2 kW output for 360 W input, as in the December run, the removal of the input always left a system stable at a somewhat lower temperature. The reason is that the reaction rate has to grow quickly at the beginning to keep the total input power ahead of the heat loss so it is always positive until it reaches the 2 kW level in the December test. In my calculations, if it grows fast enough to ensure that it reaches 2 kW, where the sign changes by design, then removal of the external drive doesn't quench it. This is true even assuming all 360 W reach the fuel. Realistically, far less than half would, especially at the higher temperatures, and this makes removal of the external even less significant. Now, it is surely possible to contrive a reaction rate dependence and a heat loss dependence to make it quench without the external heat, but it's far from obvious that it would be realistic, and that one could engineer the necessary dependence, particularly in so many and varied configurations. So, that's why I asked what your proposed functional dependences are that would give the observed behavior. How does the reaction rate depend on temperature, and how does the heat loss depend on temperature? And are they realistic dependences? But the real question, which is what raised the issue to begin with, is *why bother* trying to engineer these dependences. You and Storms admit that Rossi has difficult engineering challenges to make such a system stable with a high COP. Why would he make it so difficult for himself? No sane person would do it this way. If the reaction rate depends on temperature, and there is danger of runaway, then the obvious way to control it is with thermostatically controlled cooling. And then you could easily make it self-sustaining, by adjusting the cooling to give any temperature necessary. Instead he adds heat with the pretense of controlling the heat, because of course, that may be all the heat he's actually got. It's like so many cold fusion claims. It's not that there is an obvious alternative explanation for the apparent excess heat. It's that there are far more direct, straightforward, transparent, and well-established ways to demonstrate it that are not used. It seems like the claims only occur when the experiment is unnecessarily indirect and complex. So, I think it's a waste of time analyzing results like this. Do the experiment with an isolated finite power source, with flow calorimetry that integrates heat in a visual way, and do it under public scrutiny without restrictions on observers, and then the world will change. As Aesop's fable "The leap at Rhodes" finshes: "No need of witnesses. Suppose this city is Rhodes. Now show us how far you can jump." > The ECAT operate
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson wrote: > So, do you need help with that spice model? > You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True believers insist on an explanation of how deception might explain the alleged observations, but do not hold themselves to the same standard to give an explanation for how nuclear reactions could be initiated in those circumstances, or how they could produce that much heat without radiation, or how NiH could produce 100 times the power density of nuclear fuel without melting, regardless of what produces the energy. That doesn't stop you from believing it happens though. There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know how it might have been done. But I know there was a rat's nest of wires, and an unnecessarily complex method of supplying power, and that deception on Rossi's part is far more likely than cold fusion. Most people looking at the cheese power video could not prove there was a trick from the video alone, and especially not from a paper written to describe the experiment, by people who actually believed in cheese power. But that doesn't mean they would not be nearly certain there is one. And it would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of electricity to set up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power unequivocally, if it were real. Likewise, the same could be done for the ecat. But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time, when close associates choose the instruments which are completely inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input timing is determined from a video tape, when the COP just happens to equal the reciprocal of the duty cycle, when the power supply box is off-limits, and the power measurements are restricted, and when the claim is as unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious. > The remainder of your discussion is nothing more than using words to avoid the issue. They are a direct response to your arguments or requests. But you have no counter to them, so you just repeat what you said before. > You wrote a large number of unsubstantiated and untrue statements which I want to take apart one by one. Yea, sure. But you don't respond to any of them. Instead you just stomp your feet and repeat yourself. As long as you ignore my responses, I'll keep repeating them. You have a double standard. Answer for that.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case > The avoidance here is from the true believers who insist that any alternative explanation must described in detail, whereas they refuse to explain the thermodynamics of a power density 100 times that of uranium in a fission reactor without melting, or how nuclear reactions can produce that much heat and no radiation, etc.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:35 PM, David Roberson wrote: > It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing > to discuss the issues. > I've written a lot of words, so obviously I'm willing to discuss. I'm kind of outnumbered here, so it's not possible to respond to everything promptly. I'm sorry if you felt neglected in the last round, but Rothwell spewed forth so much nonsense, that was nevertheless more comprehensible than your non-explanation explanations (which are really just assertions), that it took higher priority. As for the weekend, well, I do unfortunately have a life. I insisted to others who are part of it that there were more people than usual wrong on the internet, and it was really important that I straighten them out, but it was my anniversary, and my wife was having none of it. But on our little weekend, I asked everyone who would listen if they thought adding heat was a logical way to regulate positive thermal feedback, and everyone from the concierge to the waiter to the lifeguard at the pool said that while it might be possible in some contrived situation, it's the stupidest thing they ever heard of. Of course, I had to explain that it was like using an electric space heater to regulate the output of a fireplace. Only the cab driver hesitated, and said he'd get back to me after he checked with his dispatcher -- I'm still waiting. > We can show that every one of his positions is nothing more than speculation with absolutely no substantiation. With only a paper to go on describing an experiment that we cannot test, that's true of every position, and in particular the position that it involves cold fusion. There are alternative explanations, and to the smart people, cold fusion is the least likely. You have made no argument to change that view. > He refuses to acknowledge errors I've acknowledged several errors that true believers have made. > that he continues to present as fact when he knows that they have no basis. I have presented as fact only things that are facts. Like the fact that they said they used 3-phase power. The idea that the purpose of the 3-phase is to obfuscate and make deception easier is, I have admitted, speculation, just as is the idea that there's any cold fusion going on. > He fails to understand how heat can be used to control the ECAT even though I have attempted to explain it to him on numerous occasions. No. You really haven't. You have only said that you could explain it. I have asked for your proposed temperature dependence of the reaction rate and heat loss, and you haven't supplied it. > He fails to understand how the DC component … I have made no specific argument about dc. You are arguing with someone else. I have said that the meter they use is inadequate because it has a limited frequency range, and clampons measure only net ac current. Therefore power at a frequency outside the range of the meter would not be detected, or concealed conductors could produce zero net current through a clampon, while nevertheless delivering power to the load, as in cheese power. I'm no EE, but if you want to exclude tricks, you should measure the input in detail. There is no indication the connections were removed and checked carefully, or of any use of a scope. That makes it suspicious. One method of deception has been identified. I hardly think it's the only one, given the confusing wiring, and the even more confusing description of the wiring and the measurements. We can't even agree on where the measurements were made in some instances. I didn't follow the dc discussion you're talking about, and I don't follow what you're saying about it. But one thing that I've not seen excluded (in addition to the cheese power) is that the 3 power lines are all floating on a dc level because of tampering with the line itself. The clampons would not detect that, and neither would the interline voltage measurements, which is all that is reported. But if there's a neutral line in to the box, power can be generated from the dc component above that indicated by the meter. Hartman says he considered a dc bias of all the input lines, but that it would require a return line, and he looked for one from the ecat. If that's what Essen was referring to as excluding dc, then I'm not buying it. Because there was no measurement of the voltage or current on the lines to the ecat during the live run in March, so that says nothing. The voltage measurement was on the input, and there is no mention that a neutral line was not available there. So that's 2 scenarios I've proposed, and you have yet to propose a single scenario for how nuclear reactions could be initiated in those circumstances, or how they could produce that much heat without radiation, or how NiH could produce 100 times the power density of nuclear fuel without melting, regardless of what produces the energy. That doesn't stop you from believing it happens though. So, even if you
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their >>> reputations on the line. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't think it's a big risk. They can plausibly claim ignorance. In >> fact their ignorance is the most plausible explanation. >> > ***No, the most plausible explanation in the light of 14,700 replications > of the P-F Anomalous Heat Effect is that the effect is real and Rossi has > found a way to generate it more reliably. > > We had this conversation about those replications, and you believe > that every single one of them was an error, which has been shown to be more > than 4500 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE demonstrably incorrect and impossible. > > No, you don't know your mathematics, because that's like saying that the chance of rolling 10 sixes out of 60 dice is (1/6)^10. It's nonsense.
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Anyway the Farnsworth Fusor is a fusion reactor that many high school level > students have built, including Conrad. > > It involves adding electrical energy in order to achieve LENR reactions. > Sound familiar, Joshua? You missed the point. I have no problem adding energy to get energy. The problem I have is when you get back several times more heat than you used to start it, it should be easy to keep it going on its own. It's like combustion. In the Fusor, they haven't done this, plus what they put in is not heat, but real electrical energy to accelerate ions. They don't get that back, so self-sustaining is harder. It's more like trying to close the loop in electrolysis experiments, where you need electricity, but you produce heat. That takes a bigger COP. > The "mainstream" wants to call it "hot" fusion but it is not. The gainful reactions are fusion but technically not hot or cold, and yes they are definitely low energy - warm not hot. Well, you can play with labels hot and cold, but this is ordinary fusion in the sense that the Coulomb barrier is overcome (or tunneled through) by kinetic energy, the branching ratios are perfectly standard, and everything is completely consistent with scientific generalizations (theory) already accumulated and verified. > The published threshold level for D+D fusion is variously listed at around 1.4 MeV up to 2.2 MeV Where are those published? Because from what I've seen (see Bussard's google talk for example, or just wikipedia) the cross-section for D-D fusion peaks around 50 keV, and is still appreciable below 10 keV. The article on fusors says a minimum of about 4 keV is needed to get useful rates. The sun's interior is 15 billion kelvins, corresponding to about 1.3 keV. That makes for a slow fusion rate, and keeps the sun burning. > and yet the Fusor average plasma energy level is lessthan 1 eV But in the fusor, it's not the plasma temperature that gives the ions the energy to fuse. The ions are accelerated into the plasma with a few keV energy. "In the fusor, the ions are accelerated to several keV by the electrodes, so heating as such is not necessary (as long as the ions fuse before losing their energy by any process)." -- Wiki > so it truly is LENR on the input side. No, it truly is not. You don't have a clue.
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: > We are taking about two different phenomenon of nature. Trying to use the > same concepts and words to describe both results in confusion. Those of us > who have studied cold fusion for the last 23 years have a definition of CF > that is not up for discussion. Please try to understand what I'm telling > you. > > Cold fusion and hot fusion require different conditions to cause their > initiation, they have different nuclear products, and they result at > different rates. These are facts and not a matter of arbitrary definition. > > Cold fusion requires only a few eV for it to be initiated. In contrast, > many keV are required to cause hot fusion at the same rate. > > Cold fusion produces helium while hot fusion produces fragments of helium. > > What do you mean fragments? Isotopes? The nuclei? Hot fusion produces isotopes of helium, including 4He very occasionally from DD fusion, but commonly from DT fusion, among other products. > Cold fusion requires a solid while hot fusion occurs in plasma. Hot fusion also occurs in a solid in neutron sources where they accelerate hydrogen isotopes into palladium deuteride in commercial neutron sources.
