Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: http://www.heise.de/tp/**artikel/35/35803/1.htmlhttp://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35803/1.html English translation http://translate.google.com/**translate?sl=detl=enjs=n** prev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=**2eotf=1u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.** heise.de%2Ftp%2Fartikel%2F35%**2F35803%2F1.htmlact=urlhttp://translate.google.com/translate?sl=detl=enjs=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Ftp%2Fartikel%2F35%2F35803%2F1.htmlact=url Video is in english. Some vorts quoted. The beginning of the second video shows (again) that the valve to the water trap was closed. So, now we know it was closed at two separate times during the time it was supposed to be collecting all the liquid water. The shadows clearly indicate the time was well before 6 (probably 2:00 or so). It kind of undermines confidence in the engineer's, shall we say, attention to detail.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up with a plausible method. After all this time, I do not think any skeptic will come up with anything. At least, not with anything that can be tested or falsified. I imagine you're trying to convince yourself that this is true by repeating it ad nauseam. But it's clearly not true. There are not one, but many methods suggested to produce what Rossi observed without nuclear reactions, and all of them are more plausible than Rossi's claimed explanation, and all are falsifiable by a long self-sustained run. The best one is courtesy of the Max Planck Institute paper, cited here yesterday, that shows that reversible metal hydride reactions can be used to store close to a MJ/kg at about 450C. The only thing that is not falsifiable is your absolute conviction that Rossi is right. I wonder if you will continue to insist daily that the Oct 6 demo is irrefutable if there are no ecats warming your (or anyone else's) house or factory, or powering any cars, or even heard of by the man in the street, in 5 years time. We will simply have to be patient to find out. Claims that you can fake it with some stage magic trick that some person somewhere might know are not valid, in my opinion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up with a plausible method. Jed, your memory must be even worse than mine. I mean it. Take your analysis here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf You ignore the central fact about this test which is that the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no input power. It was too hot to touch. It burned an observer. This is irrefutable proof that the effect is real. Instead of explaining this, or even trying to deal with it, you raise nitpicking objections to irrelevant details. I take this as tacit admission on your part that the effect is real. Your paper is the best proof that even thoughtful, careful skeptics have no reasons to doubt this claim. Obviously, people who think that ultrasonic humidifier mist can be pushed through a long hose never did have any valid reasons. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Jed, You should read the report you cite again. He doesn't ignore that the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours. He takes it head-on. Go straight to pages 8 and 9. Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:31:17 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up with a plausible method. Jed, your memory must be even worse than mine. I mean it. Take your analysis here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf You ignore the central fact about this test which is that the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no input power. It was too hot to touch. It burned an observer. This is irrefutable proof that the effect is real. Instead of explaining this, or even trying to deal with it, you raise nitpicking objections to irrelevant details. I take this as tacit admission on your part that the effect is real. Your paper is the best proof that even thoughtful, careful skeptics have no reasons to doubt this claim. Obviously, people who think that ultrasonic humidifier mist can be pushed through a long hose never did have any valid reasons. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: You ignore the central fact about this test which is that the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no input power. Big deal. It weighs 100 kg. Ten kg is enough to stay at boiling for 40 hours, without any nuclear reactions. It was too hot to touch. It burned an observer. Which observer was that? This is irrefutable proof that the effect is real. No, it's not even suggestive of nuclear reactions. You can do at least 10 times better with chemistry.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: You should read the report you cite again. He doesn't ignore that the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours. He takes it head-on. Go straight to pages 8 and 9. I saw that. That is an attempt to explain the Tout thermocouple. It cannot explain palpable heat over the entire surface of the reactor lasting for four hours. That's preposterous! Putting iron or any other material in the walls or around the cell cannot do that for several reasons: 1. Stored energy can only cause the temperature to decline monotonically, very rapidly at first (Newton's law of cooling). Yet this heat increased during the event. 2. You cannot heat the iron around the cell or in the call walls up to 543°C with electric heaters inside the cell. They would have to reach much higher temperatures than any electric heater is capable of. 3. The data shows that the reactor cools in ~40 min. when the power is cut. That is the actual, measured limit of stored heat with this system, at these temperatures and inputs. You cannot magically change it to 4 hours. The data shows a rapid decline in temperature. You cannot magically change that to an increase. Sorry to be harsh, but I took that section on p. 8 as politician-style evasion, along the lines of we have to say something here, so let's fill in the blank with what we know just ain't so. This analysis cannot be taken seriously. It is full of gaping holes and impossibilities. I realize that Heffner does not see it that way, but I do. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Stored energy can only cause the temperature to decline monotonically, very rapidly at first (Newton's law of cooling). Yet this heat increased during the event. Not true. If the inside is hotter than the outside, the outside can heat up, just from stored energy. Try this: Get an oil-filled space heater, and plug it in for about 5 or 10 minutes, then measure the surface temperature. It will continue to increase after it is turned off. With water-vapor in equilibrium, it is even easier to explain. If the inside of the container is well above boiling, then the temperature of the water/steam will be completely determined by the pressure. So, if the pressure increases as steam is formed, the temperature will increase. Moreover, chemical fuel can produce heat, which could increase the temperature. An increase in temperature, by itself, is no evidence of nuclear reactions. And the energy density is but a tiny fraction of the best chemical energy densities. 2. You cannot heat the iron around the cell or in the call walls up to 543°C with electric heaters inside the cell. They would have to reach much higher temperatures than any electric heater is capable of. But the iron in the walls accounts for only a small part of the 100 kg mass. The inner part could easily consist of 30 - 50 kg of thermal mass heated up to hundreds of degrees. About 15 kg of metal hydride could store the 13 MJ necessary to produce all the observations in that demo. 3. The data shows that the reactor cools in ~40 min. when the power is cut. No. It doesn't. It cools by 10C in 40 minutes. And that's when the coolant flow rate is doubled. And it's at the end of the run, when most of the stored energy will have already been drawn down. For this oft-repeated argument to be valid, it would have to be done at the beginning, not the end, of the run, with the same flow rate. That is the actual, measured limit of stored heat with this system, at these temperatures and inputs. No. It's not, because you don't know the temperature of the inner core. At the end of the run it may have been 200C or less, but at the beginning at 500C or more. Those two temperatures give the same temperature of the water-steam mixture. To get the limit of energy storage, you have to see how fast it cools *right after it's heated up*, not 3.25 hours later. You cannot magically change it to 4 hours. The data shows a rapid decline in temperature. You cannot magically change that to an increase. There is nothing magic about starting at a higher inner temperature. That's just simple physics. And there's nothing magic about part of a system increasing in temperature, even if the average temperature decreases. That's just physics. To some, simple physics may look like magic. But if you've studied physics, it just looks normal. Your friend has a famous quote about that. This analysis cannot be taken seriously. It is full of gaping holes and impossibilities. I realize that Heffner does not see it that way, but I do. You are in the minority.
RE: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
The fact that it remained hot is all the proof you need. I don't get it. If there was no nuclear reaction and all of the energy came from thermal storage, then in deed the device will stay hot for a long time. However if all the heat came from a nuclear reaction, I'd expect it to cool down very fast once the reaction has been stopped. Are you implying that this particular kind of reaction exhibits the exact behavior as thermal storage when shut down? (i.e. cooling off at a very slow rate due to some continuing reaction despite H2 being shut down and whatever it supposedly takes to stop fusion). Since the details of the reaction are unknown - wouldn't that be an argument in favor of storage rather than against?
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Dec 15, 2011, at 5:31 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up with a plausible method. Jed, your memory must be even worse than mine. I mean it. Take your analysis here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf You ignore the central fact about this test which is that the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no input power. It was too hot to touch. It burned an observer. This is irrefutable proof that the effect is real. Instead of explaining this, or even trying to deal with it, you raise nitpicking objections to irrelevant details. I take this as tacit admission on your part that the effect is real. Your paper is the best proof that even thoughtful, careful skeptics have no reasons to doubt this claim. Obviously, people who think that ultrasonic humidifier mist can be pushed through a long hose never did have any valid reasons. - Jed Either your memory is bad or you set very different standards of credibility for Rossi's claims than you do for the plausibility of faking methods. Your choice of my paper as an example is diversionary because (1) it only deals with one test and (2) it assumes a configuration with no fraud, no chemical energy being provided, a configuration with a logical reason behind it. That said, I think you should read the analysis again. All that is required to boil water and burn people for the test duration is an appropriate thermal mass and thermal resistance. The gross calculations of those were provided early on. Later I provided Graph 2S, referenced on page 13 as: http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Graph2S.png which demonstrates an output of between 1500 W and and 750 W between time 150 minutes and time 476 minutes. I'd say sustaining a thermal output of between 1500 W and 750 W, or even half that, *without even using chemical energy*, just thermal mass, is enough to boil water and burn observers for 4 hours. Not all the water needs be boiled that was claimed for your conditions to be met. Also, the position of the Tout thermocouple, as well as the horizontal position of the heat exchanger, in the Oct test is not nitpicking. These things are critical to the interpretation of the results. If you assume fraud and add the possibility of chemical energy, which is feasible by numerous means, and only the use of the 30x30x30 cm interior box, then it is even feasible to produce the *claimed* energy output which was assumed but not proven. Even batteries can do that. For example see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg58712.html Pyrolysis of carbon based fuels is another feasible method. See: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg56339.html Don't bother saying people saw inside the box. No one saw inside the 30x30x30 cm interior box, shown in photos 1 and 2 in my paper, much less inside the supposed reactor chambers. There was not even proof given such reaction chambers even existed. As for the other public tests, the *assumption* that pure steam was being provided makes the tests invalid as proof of principle. You apparently think waving your arms in the air and convincing yourself amounts to some kind of proof, or even has any meaningful bearing, regarding what did or did not, or could or could not, have happened in the Rossi tests. There remains doubt. I think even you have some doubts. There is no actual proof of anything - even though that proof could have easily been provided if Rossi cared to do so. Watching this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9I_CJti-RU from 10:26 to 16:09, where the Petroldragon fiasco is reviewed, provides sufficient reason to have some cautious reservation regarding Rossi's present results. Numerous methods of faking the Rossi demonstrations have been discussed, methods just as credible as Rossi's claims that is. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. NASA certainly does not find the tests credible proof. There clearly are numerous credible ways for such short running tests to be erroneous or faked. The burden of proof is not on NASA or anyone else to provide faking methods credible to everyone. Certainly various faking methods have been presented which are credible to me. I have seen neither proof nor disproof publicly provided that Rossi has anything worth investment. The burden of proof is on Rossi. What is necessary is Rossi's credibility, not the credibility of specific faking mechanisms. What is shocking is the assumption on the part of so many people that Rossi's claims are true without the proof that could have been so easily provided by Rossi if he cared. If this turns out to be a boondoggle then it will damage the credibility of the field and the serious researchers who
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Your choice of my paper as an example is diversionary because (1) it only deals with one test . . . I have dealt with the other tests, separately, as have others. Some of them are also definitive. The last one was not! and (2) it assumes a configuration with no fraud, no chemical energy being provided . . . Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims of stage magic is not falsifiable. I have dealt with chemical energy by pointing out that in my opinion it is impossible to make a chemical fuel system this small that puts out this much energy. You disagree, but do not accuse me of ignoring these issues. We have to agree to disagree on these issues. That does not mean I have forgotten anything. It just means that if you are right, I am wrong. . . . which demonstrates an output of between 1500 W and and 750 W between time 150 minutes and time 476 minutes. That estimate is far too low. The heat radiating from the reactor plus the heat captured in the cooling loop far exceeds that. Note. For some of the details I described here, I assume the cooling loop TC may be recording incorrectly but it does reflect the overall profile and relative heat output at different times. When the heat increases, the second TC shows a higher temperature. When the TC zero intercept is 40 min. away, that is how long it takes to cool down. Actually I'm pretty sure the cooling loop TC is correct to within a fraction of degree, but it does not matter. None of the instrument readings matter. That is fortunate, because Rossi' instrumentation is lousy, as we all know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Stored heat can only emerge. It cannot stay hot. It has cool monotonically, according to Newton's law: You're burning the last point I held for Rossi (which was that I wondered whether scientists could be fooled so easily - apparently they can). Newton's law would not be violated, of course. If you heat one side of a homogeneous, iron block (or the inside, for that matter) the other side will heat up gradually until the entire thing reaches equilibrium. Overall it will naturally cool from the moment the heat source is removed - but overall cooling is not what's in question. Thermal conductivity of Iron reduces with rising temperature. Combined with an appropriate insulator its easy to build a heat storage system that yields more or less constant temperatures at a particualr point for a long time after the initial heating at another point has stopped. And, as Joshua Cude already pointed out, with water as the cooling medium being the only thing measured, its even easier. It doesn't have to be especially elaborate or even magic. I'm not saying it is, but it can surely be a really cheap trick.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Dec 15, 2011, at 6:21 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: You should read the report you cite again. He doesn't ignore that the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours. He takes it head-on. Go straight to pages 8 and 9. I saw that. That is an attempt to explain the Tout thermocouple. It cannot explain palpable heat over the entire surface of the reactor lasting for four hours. That's preposterous! Putting iron or any other material in the walls or around the cell cannot do that for several reasons: 1. Stored energy can only cause the temperature to decline monotonically, very rapidly at first (Newton's law of cooling). Yet this heat increased during the event. You apparently have forgotten that thermal pulses from a passive device can be delayed until long after the power is applied. This is evidence of what I was talking about in this thread. Your mind must be going. I think I can recognize this because it is happening to me! I don't think this is a case of projection. I am stunned you are still saying this kind of thing. Maybe you do not understand thermal pulses, so don't accept my data? Do you not understand that the graphs: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph2S.png http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph5S.png http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph6S.png are all from the same simulation, represent consistent data? The maximum thermal flux occurs after the input energy is cut off. This is fully passive heat transfer. The maximum flux occurs after power cutoff. This maximum thermal flux point can be further delayed beyond power cutoff by either choice of other passive materials, or by use of active controls. 2. You cannot heat the iron around the cell or in the call walls up to 543°C with electric heaters inside the cell. They would have to reach much higher temperatures than any electric heater is capable of. Just to be clear, no one is talking about heating the outside box metal envelope. My focus is entirely the inside box, the 30 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm inside box, the insides of which no one has seen. It is easy to place a thermal mass inside this volume that can store and release sufficient energy to meet the requirement of producing some boiling water for 4 hours, especially if phase changing salts are used. Also, small ceramic kilns are commonly available that reach over 1200°C. Graph 6S shows a maximum internal temperature of about 1000°C being reached at time 270 minutes, 11 minutes before converting power to the frequency generator. 3. The data shows that the reactor cools in ~40 min. when the power is cut. That is the actual, measured limit of stored heat with this system, at these temperatures and inputs. That is merely a measure of the stored heat and thermal conductivity at the end of the test. I have stated the data indicates there is an active control mechanism by which the thermal conductivity, or water exposure to the stored heat, is reduced by application of main heater power, or frequency generator power. When the power is reduced the thermal ouput increases. Maximal thermal transfer thus only happens when all power is removed at the end of the run. Water flow rate was supposedly increased then too. Heiko Lietz asked Rossi why the output power momentarily rises when input power is cut. Rossi's response was that this is confidential. You cannot magically change it to 4 hours. The data shows a rapid decline in temperature. You cannot magically change that to an increase. It takes no magic - a mere calculation, which I provided. This is not magic or even arm waving. Sorry to be harsh, It's OK. Why should you follow special rules? 8^) but I took that section on p. 8 as politician-style evasion, along the lines of we have to say something here, so let's fill in the blank with what we know just ain't so. I don't know what you are talking about. I provided a calculation example based on simple hypothesis that iron was involved in the thermal mass. Later calculations, simulations, considered other possibilities. Do you see the word suppose? Other assumptions provide explanations closer to the observations. This analysis cannot be taken seriously. It is full of gaping holes and impossibilities. I realize that Heffner does not see it that way, but I do. - Jed The only gaping holes in my opinion are the questions of just where the Tout thermocouple was located during the test, and whether an air pocket in the heat exchanger manifold affected the temperature at the Tout location. Rossi's tests and explanations are full of holes and self contradictions, impossibilities. It is Rossi's tests and explanations that matter. All the blather from the peanut gallery is irrelevant, except possibly to alert the few gullible
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
At 10:45 AM 12/15/2011, Horace Heffner wrote: Just to be clear, no one is talking about heating the outside box metal envelope. My focus is entirely the inside box, the 30 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm inside box, the insides of which no one has seen. It is easy to place a thermal mass inside this volume that can store and release sufficient energy to meet the requirement of producing some boiling water for 4 hours, especially if phase changing salts are used. Also, small ceramic kilns are commonly available that reach over 1200°C. Graph 6S shows a maximum internal temperature of about 1000°C being reached at time 270 minutes, 11 minutes before converting power to the frequency generator. 30 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm That's much bigger than is shown in Lewan's photo. http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/lewan_DSC_0089_600_a.jpg I'd say that it's 30 cm x 30 cm x 15 cm at MOST, and more likely closer to Rossi's 30 cm x 30 cm x 10 cm. I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate?
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: 3. The data shows that the reactor cools in ~40 min. when the power is cut. That is the actual, measured limit of stored heat with this system, at these temperatures and inputs. That is merely a measure of the stored heat and thermal conductivity at the end of the test. No, also at the beginning, just before the self-sustaining event, around minute 250. Same slope as at the end. The power between 150 and 250 shown in the cooling loop is more or less stable, meaning the thing has reached the terminal temperature. It has achieved a balance between input and output. There is some excess energy around 220 - 250. Since the cooling curve more or less balances the input power curve during this segment, I assume the TC placement is not a big problem. After the self-sustaining event begins, output goes way up, far above the most you can input with electric power. As for the rest of your comments . . . I am not the only one who disagrees with you. So do all of the knowledgeable people I asked to review your paper. I suggest you ask one of them for a critique. Let's leave it at that. I will let you have the last word regarding the rest of these issues. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: As for the rest of your comments . . . I am not the only one who disagrees with you. So do all of the knowledgeable people I asked to review your paper. I suggest you ask one of them for a critique. Does he know who these knowledgeable people are? Do we?
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Does he know who these knowledgeable people are? Do we? Cold fusion researchers who know a lot about calorimetry. The usual suspects. Horace is well acquainted with them, and generally held in high regard, I believe. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Does he know who these knowledgeable people are? Do we? Cold fusion researchers who know a lot about calorimetry. The usual suspects. Horace is well acquainted with them, and generally held in high regard, I believe. So these people support your views about the impossibility of storing enough heat during the warmup period in the large Ottoman E-cat of October 6 to account for the results? Do they believe Rossi has accomplished cold fusion/LENR with his device? How do they explain the anemic and deficient tests that Rossi insists on doing instead of the proper and appropriate tests you, Josephson, Celani, and many many others have suggested to him? Do any of the experts you know have a theory about why anyone would buy and accept a leaky, awkward, probably unserviceable, megawatt plant that ran at half power connected to a generator? For what purpose? Why would anyone buy a single one, much less 13? And why, after almost a year since the first demo has lapsed, would Rossi not have thousands of clients instead of one mysterious, anonymous one if his device were real?
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Dec 15, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Your choice of my paper as an example is diversionary because (1) it only deals with one test . . . I have dealt with the other tests, separately, as have others. Some of them are also definitive. The last one was not! and (2) it assumes a configuration with no fraud, no chemical energy being provided . . . Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims of stage magic is not falsifiable. Uhhh how does that differ from just ignoring it? If stage magic in this case is not falsifiable then buyer beware, especially given Rossi's history, self contradictory statements, and bizarre behavior. The nature or limitations of such magic can be examined though, given various premises. I have dealt with chemical energy by pointing out that in my opinion it is impossible to make a chemical fuel system this small that puts out this much energy. You disagree, but do not accuse me of ignoring these issues. I haven't said you ignored these issues. It appeared to me you did not recall what has been numerically proven to you, at least in regards to the big E-cat, which is the only E-cat relevant to my paper. If you are talking about the little ones then that issue is moot because the little ones could have been dumping almost all mass in the form of water. We have to agree to disagree on these issues. That does not mean I have forgotten anything. It just means that if you are right, I am wrong. It means you are wrong to the extent of dismissing quantitatively demonstrated feasibility. That chemical fakes can be made which can be made to replicate the public tests it seems to me is indisputable. . . . which demonstrates an output of between 1500 W and and 750 W between time 150 minutes and time 476 minutes. That estimate is far too low. The heat radiating from the reactor plus the heat captured in the cooling loop far exceeds that. Stating the estimate is far too low is arm waving. Also, as I said, that power is enough to (1) boil water, and (2) burn someone who touches the manifold. That was your stated requirement. If chemical means are added, the thermal flux can of course be many times higher. Note. For some of the details I described here, I assume the cooling loop TC may be recording incorrectly but it does reflect the overall profile The overall profile can be met using mixes of materials and active control. Depending on the sophistication of the active control, *any* profile can be easily met of course. and relative heat output at different times. When the heat increases, the second TC shows a higher temperature. When the TC zero intercept is 40 min. away, that is how long it takes to cool down. That is how long it takes to cool down under the final conditions. This does not mean those conditions hold throughout the test. This is an unwarranted assumption on your part. Actually I'm pretty sure the cooling loop TC is correct to within a fraction of degree, but it does not matter. None of the instrument readings matter. That is fortunate, because Rossi' instrumentation is lousy, as we all know. - Jed His instrumentation was indeed lousy but easily fixed, and he certainly knew how to fix the problems, given the extensive world wide discussions! The motive, means, and opportunity for fraud are certainly there in extremes, as well as a checkered past. Extreme caution is justified, as is a more skeptical and numerical approach to data analysis. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: So these people support your views about the impossibility of storing enough heat during the warmup period in the large Ottoman E-cat of October 6 to account for the results? It would be more correct to say I support their views, or we arrived at the same conclusion. Do they believe Rossi has accomplished cold fusion/LENR with his device? Other than Talbot Chubb every researcher I have discussed this with believes most of the claims. Not all to the same extent. There are shades of belief. It is not an all or nothing. The pople who are most convinced are those who observed the tests in person, such as Celani. How do they explain the anemic and deficient tests that Rossi insists on doing instead of the proper and appropriate tests you, Josephson, Celani, and many many others have suggested to him? See McKubre's recent talk: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm As I said here, I agree with his characterization of Rossi and Rossi's business strategy. To reiterate, McKubre began by calling Rossi a dodgy character but technically brilliant. He discusses Rossi's business plans. He says Rossi is the master of misdirection. His business strategy is also brilliant. He is keeping his results ambiguous to avoid competition and the evil eye of the DoE. We have no proof of that, but it seems likely. I am not sure I agree the business strategy is brilliant. But given his IP problems, it is hard to come up with a better strategy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
I have bowed out of this discussion, but let me clarify this point: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims of stage magic is not falsifiable. Uhhh how does that differ from just ignoring it? It is a problem of logic, as I explained to Yugo. An assertion that cannot be tested or falsified cannot be debated. I cannot dispute it. Or agree with it, for that matter. It is meaningless. She claims there may be someone somewhere in the world who knows how to hide wires or chemical fuel in such a way that experts opening the cell would not be able to detect it. Until Yugo cites a specific stage magic technique that might accomplish this, there is no basis to determine whether it might be true or not. I do not believe such a stage trick can exist, even in principle. I have some knowledge of stage magic. As soon as the stage props are opened up and examined from the point of view of the magician -- that is, from the angle the audience cannot see -- the mechanism is obvious. It is always simple. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawing_a_woman_in_half#Methods_and_exposure No matter how you fake an eCat, the moment the reactor is opened up experts will see how it works. There is no way to hide wires. The cell is much too small to produce a chemical reaction of this magnitude, when you take into account the space needed for the equipment such as tanks and burners. Arguments that cannot be tested, falsified or refuted are verboten in science, but they are allowed in some other academic fields, such as literature critique or theology. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: It is a problem of logic, as I explained to Yugo. An assertion that cannot be tested or falsified cannot be debated. I cannot dispute it. Or agree with it, for that matter. It is meaningless. You keep saying that but other people and I keep pointing out to you that Rossi can falsify it simply by running long enough when properly observed therefore it can be tested or falsified. Your continuing to say it can't doesn't make it so. What remains true is that Rossi has not properly falsified the proposition that he's faking his results. I do not believe such a stage trick can exist, even in principle. I have some knowledge of stage magic. Perhaps not enough. If you did, you'd know some illusions are quite complex and the method is not at all what one would predict from seeing it. As soon as the stage props are opened up and examined from the point of view of the magician -- that is, from the angle the audience cannot see -- the mechanism is obvious. It is always simple. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawing_a_woman_in_half#Methods_and_exposure No matter how you fake an eCat, the moment the reactor is opened up experts will see how it works. There is no way to hide wires. The cell is much too small to produce a chemical reaction of this magnitude, when you take into account the space needed for the equipment such as tanks and burners. Yes but in the case of the Ottoman E-cat, it was never properly opened up. One can argue a bit about the volume not seen in the finned case but it was considerable. Only Rossi knows what's in that sizeable box. And there is nothing to stop Rossi from relying on several different methods to falsify results. In Levi's experiment, some have guessed the T out thermocouple was in contact with a heating element, thus giving the incredible 130 kW out transient. In the early small E-cat tests, Rossi relied on heat of vaporization of steam which has been argued here extensively and he also may have goosed the heater when nobody was looking. In the megawatt demo, there is nothing to discuss because nobody saw the data being taken! Good illusionists do not repeat the same illusion in the same show to the same audience because eventually people will catch on. Rossi may have several methods to deceive. Arguments that cannot be tested, falsified or refuted are verboten in science, Could you explain to me how a properly performed, well instrumented, calibrated, long lasting and independent test of Rossi's device would not (for all practical and any interesting purposes) falsify that he was faking by illusion or any other mechanism? Note: the hypothesis that he would pass such an independent test but have faked at other times is a trivial case not worth considering for practical purposes... just in case you were thinking in that direction :-)
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
At 11:08 AM 12/15/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate? http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~meam502/project/reviewexample2.pdf (2007) Very few with a melting-point above 100C -- and most of those are categorized as Group II or III or - Group I, most promising; group II, promising; group III, Less promising; -- insufficient data. Methyl fumarate (CHCO2NH3)2 102C 242kJ/kg Group I MgCl26H2O 117C 167 kJ/kg Group I (Compared to water specific heat at 4 kJ/kg K : Rock/Brick 0.9 kJ/kg K)
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: It is a problem of logic, as I explained to Yugo. An assertion that cannot be tested or falsified cannot be debated. I cannot dispute it. Or agree with it, for that matter. It is meaningless. You keep saying that but other people and I keep pointing out to you that Rossi can falsify it simply by running long enough . . . PLEASE Mary, for goodness sake, one last time: READ THIS I am talking about YOUR STATEMENT, taken in isolation, strictly from a logical point of view. I am NOT TALKING ABOUT what Rossi can or cannot do. I am not even talking about the content of your statement! I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be falsifiable, and you cannot test or falsify this one. You cannot prove that some person out in the world knows how to accomplish X, Y or Z. You would have have to ask every stage magician on earth before determining whether this is true. That is impractical. If you don't understand, then I suggest you read a book about logic. This is fundamental. It is about LOGIC and NOT THE PARTICULARS OF THIS CASE. Nothing to do with Rossi. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I am talking about YOUR STATEMENT, taken in isolation, strictly from a logical point of view. I am NOT TALKING ABOUT what Rossi can or cannot do. Apart from everything else, why on earth would you want to do that? This is a practical situation-- not a debating society or a discussion about rules of logic. I am not even talking about the content of your statement! Well then, please do talk about it. Seems to me, that's the issue! I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be falsifiable, and you cannot test or falsify this one. You cannot prove that some person out in the world knows how to accomplish X, Y or Z. Maybe you didn't intend to phrase that this way? Of course you can prove someone can accomplish X, Y and Z. By finding someone who can and showing that they can. You would have have to ask every stage magician on earth before determining whether this is true. That is impractical. I don't see what you're getting at. Or why or what it has to do with this discussion? If you don't understand, then I suggest you read a book about logic. This is fundamental. It is about LOGIC and NOT THE PARTICULARS OF THIS CASE. Nothing to do with Rossi. OK, maybe someone else can explain it to me in sixth grade terms I can understand. My last formal logic class was sometime ago.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On 11-12-15 03:52 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I am talking about YOUR STATEMENT, taken in isolation, strictly from a logical point of view. I am NOT TALKING ABOUT what Rossi can or cannot do. Apart from everything else, why on earth would you want to do that? This is a practical situation-- not a debating society or a discussion about rules of logic. I am not even talking about the content of your statement! Well then, please do talk about it. Seems to me, that's the issue! I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be falsifiable, and you cannot test or falsify this one. You cannot prove that some person out in the world knows how to accomplish X, Y or Z. Maybe you didn't intend to phrase that this way? Of course you can prove someone can accomplish X, Y and Z. By finding someone who can and showing that they can. You would have have to ask every stage magician on earth before determining whether this is true. That is impractical. I don't see what you're getting at. Or why or what it has to do with this discussion? If you don't understand, then I suggest you read a book about logic. This is fundamental. It is about LOGIC and NOT THE PARTICULARS OF THIS CASE. Nothing to do with Rossi. OK, maybe someone else can explain it to me in sixth grade terms I can understand. My last formal logic class was sometime ago. LOL ! This has turned into an entertaining discussion. I'll stick an oar in, and you can all ignore it. (I'm sure you've already grasped this point, MY, but none the less here it is...) Jed's argument, MY, is basically that, by (in effect) saying Somebody somewhere would be able to come up with a trick that fooled all observers, you've made a statement which by its nature can not be proved false. (It would require an exhaustive search of all possible methods for faking it, which is not practical.) As simple as that. Jed has, after all, a technical point, but it's not worth enough to win the match. The problem with Jed's point is that it's vulnerable to a reductio ad absurdum. Specifically, it leads to a rather obvious logical conclusion, which goes something like this: If you can't think of a specific way this scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, then it's not reasonable to ask for REPLICATION, because he's already proved his claims. The latter, though it follows logically from Jed's position, isn't an argument most folks would buy into, I think (FWIW I still favor sleight of hand and misdirection, with a minimum of special equipment, but whatever... If Rossi's really any good and handles his exit gracefully enough, we'll never know how he did it, and five years from now we'll still be arguing over the one that got away.)
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: The problem with Jed's point is that it's vulnerable to a reductio ad absurdum. Specifically, it leads to a rather obvious logical conclusion, which goes something like this: If you can't think of a specific way this scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, then it's not reasonable to ask for REPLICATION, because he's already proved his claims. Nope. As you say, that is reductio ad absurdum. I do not think my statement is vulnerable to that. The only valid statement starting with these premises would be: If you can't think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTAL scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, then you have no basis to challenge the conclusions. You have to specify experimentalist, since the rules are slightly different for theory or observational science, medical science, and so on. All critiques of experiments must be based on specific discussions of instruments and techniques. No appealing to theory allowed. Your pretend conclusion, . . . it's not reasonable to ask for REPLICATION, because he's already proved his claims is not valid because replication is always required. It does not matter how strong the evidence is; you cannot short-circuit that step. That's another rule of experimental science, but not all the other branches. Here is a valid variation similar to what you proposed: If no one can think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTALIST scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, after some number of years and despite many attempts, and after widespread replications, then it is no longer reasonable to ask for additional REPLICATION, because he and the others who replicated already proved the claims That is in fact where we stand with the Fleischmann Pons effect. The statute of limitations ran out a long time ago. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims of stage magic is not falsifiable. I don't know who you think is convinced by that. Of course it's falsifiable. Just run the experiment long enough without input to exclude any possible source of energy except nuclear. Stage magic is not real magic you know. It still depends on the laws of physics. And even if it were paranormal, James Randi makes a living falsifying claims of paranormal. To be falsifiable, you only have to be able to *conceive* of an experiment that would contradict it. It's intended to distinguish scientific theories or assertions from religious ones. Not to discount speculation as you've done. Otherwise we could deal with Rossi by saying his claims are not falsifiable. It's ridiculous, and you need to find a new chorus to sing. I have dealt with chemical energy by pointing out that in my opinion it is impossible to make a chemical fuel system this small that puts out this much energy. This is not a matter of opinion. Clean-burning fuel like alcohol stores the amount of energy Rossi displayed in less than one liter. It would be easy to burn that in a 100 kg device of that size. . . . which demonstrates an output of between 1500 W and and 750 W between time 150 minutes and time 476 minutes. That estimate is far too low. The heat radiating from the reactor plus the heat captured in the cooling loop far exceeds that. Hard evidence does not support more than a few hundred watts on average. And the soft evidence, the losses through the insulation, not more than a few hundred more, for a total of 1 kW or less. Remember there were 50 of those fat cats inside a shipping container. If each was losing a kW or even 500 W, the inside of that container would have been unbearably hot. How's that for soft evidence?
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The power between 150 and 250 shown in the cooling loop is more or less stable, meaning the thing has reached the terminal temperature. It has achieved a balance between input and output. It's stable because it's measuring the temperature of water and steam at equilibrium. To the extent the pressure is stable, the temperature must also be, regardless of the rate of flow of heat into the water. And if the energy is stored in some kind of phase-change material then the temperature of the thermal mass will be stable at the melting point, and the heat flow to the water will be pretty constant until the material has all solidified. That's the time to shut the show down, because then the heat flow is likely to start slowing down, and soon enough the water will stop boiling, and *then* the temperature will start to fall. So, if he's using a phase-change material to store the heat, he's got two layers of stabilization going for him. As for the rest of your comments . . . I am not the only one who disagrees with you. So do all of the knowledgeable people I asked to review your paper. There are also a lot of people who agree with that analysis, at least its broad strokes. But counting supporters won't move this forward. Challenging and defending the claims will. Or should.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: Rossi's tests and explanations are full of holes and self contradictions, impossibilities. It is Rossi's tests and explanations that matter. All the blather from the peanut gallery is irrelevant, except possibly to alert the few gullible investors that might listen, and to demonstrate that the LENR research community is not so crackpot as to easily accept scientifically unproven claims of commercial viability. What it's demonstrated is that there are only a few not so crackpot. You and Krivit are in the minority if Rothwell is right that most of the CF community believes Rossi. If Rossi flames out, Krivit will become an unbearable sage in the field. That is, more unbearable than he already is.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate? You might also consider reversible metal-hydride reactions.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Other than Talbot Chubb every researcher I have discussed this with believes most of the claims. Not many on record though. It will be interesting if the ecat comes to nothing, to see how they will rationalize their beliefs in the claims. Because the absence of a real commercial product in a few years would all but prove the claims wrong. Probably conspiracy theories will abound. See McKubre's recent talk: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm As I said here, I agree with his characterization of Rossi and Rossi's business strategy. To reiterate, McKubre began by calling Rossi a dodgy character but technically brilliant. He discusses Rossi's business plans. He says Rossi is the master of misdirection. His business strategy is also brilliant. He is keeping his results ambiguous to avoid competition and the evil eye of the DoE. Can results be ambiguous and irrefutable at the same time?
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It is a problem of logic, as I explained to Yugo. An assertion that cannot be tested or falsified cannot be debated. I cannot dispute it. Or agree with it, for that matter. It is meaningless. This sounds like the tactic of a loser. The same can be said of Rossi's claim that the heat comes from nuclear reactions. Rossi's claim is based on energy density. If it does not exceed the energy density possible by chemical or thermal storage, then he has nothing. And any claim of magic (illusion) still has to satisfy the laws of nature. It is perfectly feasible to conceive of ways Rossi could do his demo to exclude illusion as an explanation. That makes it falsifiable. But trying to obfuscate an argument with rules of logic that you don't understand may allow you to keep jabbering, but I have no idea who could possibly buy into it. The levels of energy Rossi is demonstrating are small enough to be produced by thermal storage, chemical reactions, or by misdirection and sleight of hand. Much larger levels of energy would not be. That would be falsification. No matter how you fake an eCat, the moment the reactor is opened up experts will see how it works. Too bad, they just cracked the lid. I'd like to see the actual amount of nickel powder used, and the absence of any other thermal mass, before I'm prepared to believe nuclear reactions are needed. There is no way to hide wires. There is no need for wires in a 100 kg device. The cell is much too small to produce a chemical reaction of this magnitude, when you take into account the space needed for the equipment such as tanks and burners. You should look up thermochemical energy storage. Arguments that cannot be tested, falsified or refuted are verboten in science, All the arguments *against* the ecat can be. Rossi won't allow it for the claims for it.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 11:08 AM 12/15/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate? http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~meam502/project/reviewexample2.pdf(2007) Very few with a melting-point above 100C -- and most of those are categorized as Group II or III or - Group I, most promising; group II, promising; group III, Less promising; -- insufficient data. It's odd that the paper says little or nothing about sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate, a mixture of which (40/60) is actually used to store energy in some concentrating solar plants. Sodium nitrate melts at 308C, and the liquid has a heat capacity of 2 J/gK if I remember correctly. It would be pretty effective for Rossi's purposes.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be falsifiable, Resorting to misunderstood rules is the refuge of people who have no good arguments left. Falsifiability just means it should be possible to conceive of an experimental result that would contradict the assertion. It's intended to avoid religious claims in a scientific arena. It's certainly possible to conceive of experimental results that would contradict all the claims that the ecat could be run on non-nuclear principles. They could all be falsified by a suitable isolated and inspected device that produced heat for a really really long time. So that the overall energy density (unambiguously measured) exceed unequivocally the energy density of the best chemical fuel. and you cannot test or falsify this one. You cannot prove that some person out in the world knows how to accomplish X, Y or Z. You would have have to ask every stage magician on earth before determining whether this is true. That is neither necessary, nor would it be sufficient. There are some tricks that haven't even been thought of yet. But James Randi would be out of a life's commitment if it weren't possible to set up controls on a demonstration that can exclude paranormal effects to discover the illusions used. He's done it repeatedly. Take for example a claim that a fission bomb (or hydrogen bomb) used sleight of hand to produce the claimed energy output. That claim could be pretty clearly falsified with a demonstration to the satisfaction of any observer you can imagine. Likewise, a small, completely isolated ecat (inspected by James Randi) that boils an olympic pool dry would falsify claims of magic to just about anyone's satisfaction. So would an ecat that powered a (small) vehicle to drive around the world without refueling. If you don't understand, then I suggest you read a book about logic. When you have to suggest people read books about logic for them to accept a claim of a new *nuclear energy source*, it's a pretty safe bet the claim is bogus. Do you need to study Plato to believe fission bombs are real?
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If you can't think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTAL scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, then you have no basis to challenge the conclusions. I can't think of any way (much less a specific way) that famous magicians could do their illusions but I am pretty sure they are still illusions. Aren't you? Similarly, I am pretty sure Rossi is running an illusion. Exactly what illusion and how it's done, I am not sure. Several people have proposed ways that seem plausible to me even though they don't to you. I never said I *know* Rossi is faking. I am saying it is by far the most likely possibility. I suppose there is a small chance that he is for real in which case the way he has gone about things should get him tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail (to use an auld American expression).
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If you can't think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTAL scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, then you have no basis to challenge the conclusions. First of all, there are many specific ways suggested to explain the ecat, that do not involve nuclear reactions. Secondly, none are necessary. Unless the energy density exceeds what is known to be possible, there is no reason to accept the claims. And thirdly, the failure of scientists (for a time) to identify the flaws in the N-ray and polywater experiments did not mean the conclusions were right, or that they should not be challenged. And that goes for all the perpetual motion claims that are repeatedly made. At some point, it is no longer interesting or necessary to even try to understand the observations made by people claiming yet again to have built a perpetual motion machine. All critiques of experiments must be based on specific discussions of instruments and techniques. No appealing to theory allowed. It's a good thing you don't make the rules. If appeals to theory were not used to guide understanding, we would lose the benefit of standing on the shoulders of giants. Robust experimental results must be accepted in contradiction to theory, for sure, and are, of course. But that's not the same as ignoring theory in the interpretation of experiments.Theory just represents an accepted generalization based on previous experiments. If a result (or more commonly, an interpretation of a result) contradicts theory, then it has to be questioned. That's a critical part of making progress. And if another interpretation of the same results fits existing theory, then it's more likely to be correct. In the case of the ecat, the experimental results consist of temperature and flow rate measurements. Claiming it's nuclear is a *theory* to explain the results. And since it is not consistent with expectations of existing theory, it is important to question it. If the temperatures and flow rates are consistent with an alternative theory that *is* consistent with existing theory, it's more likely to be correct. replication is always required. It does not matter how strong the evidence is; you cannot short-circuit that step. That's another rule of experimental science, Replication is always desirable to improve and understand, but it's not always necessary to accept a new phenomenon. The Wright's 1908 flight in Paris was enough to convince all skeptics. An exploding nuclear bomb would convince all skeptics. And it's not hard to imagine a single demo of the ecat that would convince all skeptics. Rossi has not come close to that yet. That is in fact where we stand with the Fleischmann Pons effect. The statute of limitations ran out a long time ago. I agree. If they claim heat from nuclear reactions and can't convince the scientific mainstream, who would love nothing more, then it's time to cut losses.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On 11-12-15 06:11 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: Falsifiability just means it should be possible to conceive of an experimental result that would contradict the assertion. It's intended to avoid religious claims in a scientific arena. It actually has much broader applications than just that. Hang around the crackpot forums long enough and you'll encounter any number of theories that are neither religious nor falsifiable. In fact, in my experience, the assertion that X must be falsifiable is most often used where X is a full-blown *theory* rather than a particular argument or single assertion. A theory which is not falsifiable is considered invalid, or, perhaps more accurately if less flamboyantly, it can be termed purely speculative. Speculation can eventually lead to a valid (falsifiable) theory, of course. However, when the speculator is running from arguments which would shoot down the speculation if it ever stood still long enough for someone to draw a bead on it, that's not likely to happen. This is, of course, something which has come up in the context of string theory. I have often heard it asked, Has string theory made any testable predictions yet?. (I am clueless regarding string theory, BTW, and have no idea what the answer to that question is.) A theory which makes no testable predictions is, of course, not falsifiable, and hence should not really be dignified with the name of theory. A nice example of a non-falsifiable bit of atheistic speculation is this one: You really live in the 33rd century, and the apparent real world is just a full-immersion video game which you happen to be playing. A related notion: You're dreaming right now, and the shreds of dream which you may remember from last night are actually distorted memories of your waking life. One slightly more serious one: There is, indeed, an aether, but Lorentz contraction due to motion through the aether happens to be exactly the same as the Fitzgerald contraction predicted by SR, and the time effects due to motion through the aether also match the time dilation predicted by SR. Consequently no experiment will show a different result due to the presence of the aether, and despite the existence of a distinguished rest frame, there is no way to determine which frame that is. (This has been called Lorentz ether theory, or LET for short, and it supposedly embodies the final version of the Lorentz's theory.) [ ... ] Take for example a claim that a fission bomb (or hydrogen bomb) used sleight of hand to produce the claimed energy output. Did you by any chance ever read The Jesus Factor?
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On 15 December 2011 15:21, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Stored energy can only cause the temperature to decline monotonically, very rapidly at first (Newton's law of cooling). Yet this heat increased during the event. It is easy to create a system in which heat transfer is limited to a near constant value - as formation of steam can create a gas barrier that limits heat transfer (a problem in designing IC engine heads). Also we know that the water level was increasing so it is simple to envisage a system where heat transfer from stored heat increases as a result of increasing contact area between water and heat source. And to reiterate heat storage: Graphite can store up to 1.5kWh/kg or nearly 3kWh/l in a vacuum enclosure. 1.5GJ from 50 modules would only require about 16kg or 8 liters per module. There are also a lot of high heat of fusion materials: LiH that requires about 1.6kWh/kg to heat from room temp to melt at 960K (~1.3kWh/L) Silicon metal that releases 0.8kWh/kg to heat up and melt at 1700K (~1.9kWh/l) LiF that releases 0.6Wh/kg heating to melt at 1120K (~1.5kWh/L). Which is why Rossi needs to do a much higher standard of demo - he certainly hasn't produced results good enough to remove all doubt about fraud. Not that I believe Rossi is a total fraud, but I am fairly convinced that he is hiding some short-fall in performance (eg reaction duration or exaggerating power level) or he wouldn't have any reason to be so furtive in his demos. Interesting chat tonight with a professional energy trader who worked for one of the big international oil trading firms. He said that they were aware of Rossi, but after investigation regarded the likelihood of it being real as 0% - and that their trading would have been massively affected by even a 1% chance of it being real.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Dec 15, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Rossi's tests and explanations are full of holes and self contradictions, impossibilities. It is Rossi's tests and explanations that matter. All the blather from the peanut gallery is irrelevant, except possibly to alert the few gullible investors that might listen, and to demonstrate that the LENR research community is not so crackpot as to easily accept scientifically unproven claims of commercial viability. What it's demonstrated is that there are only a few not so crackpot. You and Krivit are in the minority if Rothwell is right that most of the CF community believes Rossi. If Rossi flames out, Krivit will become an unbearable sage in the field. That is, more unbearable than he already is. Just to be clear, I am not convinced either way about Rossi's cats being genuine. Maybe it is genuine, against all odds, at least in part. I do think his antics and history require an unusually skeptical viewpoint from a business perspective. From a scientific point of view I think he has demonstrated nothing, and is not interested in demonstrating anything, or he would have. This adds up to zero scientific credibility. This is not to say there is nothing in what he is doing that *may* be worthy of serious scientific interest. I think there are few long time members of the LENR community who are adamant and vocal disbelievers, and few who are adamant and vocal believers. There are certainly few crackpots. The vast majority seem to me to be sitting on a fence waiting to see what develops, or at least consider the topic unworthy of serious effort to discuss. My point of view is there is a need to be vocal without taking either extreme position, that there is serious need to find out the facts as soon as possible. There is a need to protect the public from fraud, to protect the LENR community from the potential downside of a boondoggle, and to protect the public interest in meeting current and future clean energy needs, which can be expected to reach crisis proportions in the lifetimes of the younger generation, if not much sooner. If Rossi's device is genuine, and he comes up with a good patent, then I think there may be a good argument for an eminent domain action. Rossi might like that, because he can get paid for doing nothing further, except maybe suing for amount adjustments. An invention of that importance should not be trifled with. A Manhattan style project is justified if the E-cats work as advertised, whether there is a patent or not. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Archeologists concern themselves with the reconstruction of cracked pots. Crackpots have fragments of insight. Harry
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Dec 15, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 10:45 AM 12/15/2011, Horace Heffner wrote: Just to be clear, no one is talking about heating the outside box metal envelope. My focus is entirely the inside box, the 30 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm inside box, the insides of which no one has seen. It is easy to place a thermal mass inside this volume that can store and release sufficient energy to meet the requirement of producing some boiling water for 4 hours, especially if phase changing salts are used. Also, small ceramic kilns are commonly available that reach over 1200°C. Graph 6S shows a maximum internal temperature of about 1000°C being reached at time 270 minutes, 11 minutes before converting power to the frequency generator. 30 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm That's much bigger than is shown in Lewan's photo. http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/lewan_DSC_0089_600_a.jpg I'd say that it's 30 cm x 30 cm x 15 cm at MOST, and more likely closer to Rossi's 30 cm x 30 cm x 10 cm. Based on what data? Note that the bolted flange is not at the bottom of the outer box, it is in the middle. All but the upper right most conduit enter the inner box *below* the inner box flanges. The inner box flanges are located at about the middle depth of the outer box, as can be seen by the front views of the box that show the entry point level for the conduits. The Lewan report says: The E-cat model used in this test was enclosed in a casing measuring about 50 x 60 x 35 centimeters. My best estimate so far, based on pixel counts, for the width of the outer box, including flanges, is 49.2 mm. This closely matches the estimate given by Lewan (taken from a Rossi staff member) of 50 cm width. The left and right outer box flanges are about 4.3 cm, thus giving the interior width of the outer box as 40.6 cm. In my paper I estimated 39.4 cm interior width. There is rough agreement. It thus looks like the 50 cm width is right. I obtain 56.9 cm overall length, including the flanges, so there is some disagreement there, but this is a very rough estimate pending a better photo analysis. I think the depth of 35 cm is likely very close to correct. I estimated the distance between the top of the inner box and the outer box to be about 3.5 cm. See VOLUME CALCULATIONS section, p. 56, and Photos 1 and 2. I estimated the depth of the cooling fins to be 3.3 cm. This leaves a potential useful height of the inner box as 35 - 3.5 - 3.3 = 28.2 cm. My best current estimate for the useful inner box size is 30.1 cm x 30.1 cm x 27 cm, using 1 mm for its outer wall thickness, and assuming the bottom of the box is elevated from the bottom of the outer box by a cm for cooling or insulation purposes. That is 24.4 liters. One of the reasons I ordered a new computer is so I can better model the device via photographic analysis, etc. I yet have a long learning curve though. These estimates can be greatly improved. If the inner flange is at the midpoint elevation of the inner box, it is at an elevation of 27 cm/2 + 1 cm = 14.5 cm from the bottom of the outer box, and thus 20.5 cm from the top of the outer box. The inner box flanges should be located about 41% of the way up the side of the outer box. This would be just below the right most port (with the black wire) shown in Photo. 1. It looks like the inner box flanges might be located slightly below this, but this only indicates the inner box flanges are no located at the middle elevation of the inner box. I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate? A good model will undoubtedly include layers of materials. I am far from completing an analysis. I have also done nothing at all regarding phase change materials. Phase change material have advantages primarily in low temperature regimes. Due to a volume restriction, a high temperature regime is likely required, or a chemical reaction of some kind in addition to thermal storage. As for phase change salts, I discuss the properties of NaF, NaCL and NaNO3, potential residential thermal storage salts, here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HotCold.pdf Glauber salt is discussed here: http://www.jatit.org/volumes/research-papers/Vol4No6/6Vol4No6.pdf Glauber salt (Na2SO4. H2O) which contains 44% Na2SO4 and 56%H2O has been studied in 1952 [6,2], and it has melting temperature of 32.4ºC, latent heat of 254Kj/Kg. Its main advantage is its low melting point. Note that if phase change storage is used then the heat flux will taper off quickly once the cooling phase change is complete. Here are some values that may be of interest: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ThermalStorage.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35803/1.html English translation http://translate.google.com/translate? sl=detl=enjs=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1u=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.heise.de%2Ftp%2Fartikel%2F35%2F35803%2F1.htmlact=url Video is in english. Some vorts quoted. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Leitz references the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9I_CJti-RUfeature=player_embedded which is in regards to 14 Jan 2011. Note oscilloscope at time 00:32! Measuring frequency generator output? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ inline: Rscope.jpg
RE: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Peter G. asked Levi about this device, at the time. Levi indicated that it was the radiation (positron) detector, IIRC. -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner Leitz references the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9I_CJti-RUfeature=player_embedded which is in regards to 14 Jan 2011. Note oscilloscope at time 00:32! Measuring frequency generator output? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Glad to see the video again. There have been so many different sources out there, that it's easy to forget where the data comes from. I sure wish that the source video from the Jan test was available; it would be great to analyze. I feel even more uneasy about PetrolDragon after seeing this video, again. The descriptions of Rossi's ability to fool scientists is in stark contrast to Mr. Rothwell's contention that Rossi couldn't fool anyone. From: hheff...@mtaonline.net Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:19:05 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Leitz references the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9I_CJti-RUfeature=player_embedded which is in regards to 14 Jan 2011. Note oscilloscope at time 00:32! Measuring frequency generator output? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Robert Leguillon wrote: I feel even more uneasy about PetrolDragon after seeing this video, again. The descriptions of Rossi's ability to fool scientists is in stark contrast to Mr. Rothwell's contention that Rossi couldn't fool anyone. This article quotes me saying there is no independent proof and this could be a gigantic and expensive hoax. In stark contrast to what you wrote here. Check your sources. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg54240.html Peter Heckert said: For example he is a good psychologist and he knows how to fool people. You said: No, he is a terrible psychologist.He does not know how to fool anyone. Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:10:20 -0500 From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz Robert Leguillon wrote: I feel even more uneasy about PetrolDragon after seeing this video, again. The descriptions of Rossi's ability to fool scientists is in stark contrast to Mr. Rothwell's contention that Rossi couldn't fool anyone. This article quotes me saying there is no independent proof and this could be a gigantic and expensive hoax. In stark contrast to what you wrote here. Check your sources. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Robert Leguillon wrote: You said: No, he is a terrible psychologist.He does not know how to fool anyone. That's what I meant by: The descriptions of Rossi's ability to fool scientists is in stark contrast to Mr. Rothwell's contention that Rossi couldn't fool anyone. I stand by that. But this article was about the 1 MW test. Even while that test was underway I reported here that there was no independent proof and no way to verify the claim, so it could easily be fake. Anyone could fake that test. Even the world's worst psychologist. The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up with a plausible method. After all this time, I do not think any skeptic will come up with anything. At least, not with anything that can be tested or falsified. Claims that you can fake it with some stage magic trick that some person somewhere might know are not valid, in my opinion. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
I was referring to the descriptions of his ability to fool people as stated in the video (embedded in the article) See from 15:20 to 16:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9I_CJti-RUfeature=player_embedded Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:50:46 -0500 From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz Robert Leguillon wrote: You said: No, he is a terrible psychologist.He does not know how to fool anyone. That's what I meant by: The descriptions of Rossi's ability to fool scientists is in stark contrast to Mr. Rothwell's contention that Rossi couldn't fool anyone. I stand by that. But this article was about the 1 MW test. Even while that test was underway I reported here that there was no independent proof and no way to verify the claim, so it could easily be fake. Anyone could fake that test. Even the world's worst psychologist. The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up with a plausible method. After all this time, I do not think any skeptic will come up with anything. At least, not with anything that can be tested or falsified. Claims that you can fake it with some stage magic trick that some person somewhere might know are not valid, in my opinion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Dec 14, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Robert Leguillon wrote: You said: No, he is a terrible psychologist.He does not know how to fool anyone. That's what I meant by: The descriptions of Rossi's ability to fool scientists is in stark contrast to Mr. Rothwell's contention that Rossi couldn't fool anyone. I stand by that. But this article was about the 1 MW test. Even while that test was underway I reported here that there was no independent proof and no way to verify the claim, so it could easily be fake. Anyone could fake that test. Even the world's worst psychologist. The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up with a plausible method. Jed, your memory must be even worse than mine. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up with a plausible method. The usual history of scammers is that they eventually have to do more demonstrations and then they get caught or become obvious. That's what happened to Sniffex and Steorn, for example. Or they stay quiet so long that nobody cares about them any more. That's what Mark Goldes and his various magnetic motor and superconductor claims have achieved -- nobody who knows anything about how things work really cares. I suppose that a few fringe lunatics might still believe him. Out of respect for this crowd, I won't name names but it's probably the usual suspects and their usual blogs. I think that within a year or so, we'll have a pretty good idea of whether Rossi is for real... or not. I'm sure if he chooses the quiet route, some believers will scream Men in black! and Suppressed by the CIA or the oil companies but nobody will believe them, I hope.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Hi Mary, Do you intend to ever reveal your true identity? If Rossi is proved right? Or proved wrong? Regards, Patrick On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up with a plausible method. The usual history of scammers is that they eventually have to do more demonstrations and then they get caught or become obvious. That's what happened to Sniffex and Steorn, for example. Or they stay quiet so long that nobody cares about them any more. That's what Mark Goldes and his various magnetic motor and superconductor claims have achieved -- nobody who knows anything about how things work really cares. I suppose that a few fringe lunatics might still believe him. Out of respect for this crowd, I won't name names but it's probably the usual suspects and their usual blogs. I think that within a year or so, we'll have a pretty good idea of whether Rossi is for real... or not. I'm sure if he chooses the quiet route, some believers will scream Men in black! and Suppressed by the CIA or the oil companies but nobody will believe them, I hope. -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Mary, Do you intend to ever reveal your true identity? If Rossi is proved right? Or proved wrong? My privacy fetish way antedates the Rossi story and has nothing to do with it. I'd tell you more but it's probably not of any interest to the typical reader of Vortex. So the answer is no. It has nothing to do with whether or not Rossi is right.
