subject:"\[Vo\]\:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires"


On 2012-12-07 16:02, Jed Rothwell wrote:

I do not like this graph on page 2:

http://www.22passi.it/pirelli/2%20layers%20constantan%20wire%20EDX%20and%20extra%20heat.pdf


I attempted to reinterpret the (new) graph on page 2 to make it easier 
to understand. I admit that at first I had almost no idea of what it was 
trying to convey. Now I think I do:


http://i.imgur.com/A0OBf.png

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires


On 2012-12-08 11:15, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

I attempted to reinterpret the (new) graph on page 2 to make it easier
to understand. I admit that at first I had almost no idea of what it was
trying to convey. Now I think I do:

http://i.imgur.com/A0OBf.png


Combining data from the table on the left and the new graph (and some 
plausible assumptions) I managed to plot a graph of input power vs 
excess power:


http://i.imgur.com/L9CV7.png

At the highest point it's 21.8% more output power than the input.

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-08 Thread Jed Rothwell

Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:


 Combining data from the table on the left and the new graph (and some
 plausible assumptions) I managed to plot a graph of input power vs excess
 power:

 http://i.imgur.com/L9CV7.png

 At the highest point it's 21.8% more output power than the input.


Good job.

Again, this gives me a bad feeling. The curve is too smooth. Too
predictable. Cold fusion excess heat never happens in a fixed ratio
compared to input, or as a varying function of input. It is not
predictable. With powder, you see nothing at low temperatures, and then it
appears, but it fluctuates.

This kind of smooth, predictable-looking curve is characteristic of an
artifact. I am not saying it is an artifact for sure, but it makes me
uncomfortable.

As I said yesterday, above all, they need calibration data in the same
range as the anomalous heat. That would put to rest most of my concerns.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-08 Thread Teslaalset

Another thing I wonder is whether STM obtained the piece of wire from
Celani or did the pre-processing by them selves using a different type of
constantan wire. The briefing seems not very clear on that.


On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:


 Combining data from the table on the left and the new graph (and some
 plausible assumptions) I managed to plot a graph of input power vs excess
 power:

 http://i.imgur.com/L9CV7.png

 At the highest point it's 21.8% more output power than the input.


 Good job.

 Again, this gives me a bad feeling. The curve is too smooth. Too
 predictable. Cold fusion excess heat never happens in a fixed ratio
 compared to input, or as a varying function of input. It is not
 predictable. With powder, you see nothing at low temperatures, and then it
 appears, but it fluctuates.

 This kind of smooth, predictable-looking curve is characteristic of an
 artifact. I am not saying it is an artifact for sure, but it makes me
 uncomfortable.

 As I said yesterday, above all, they need calibration data in the same
 range as the anomalous heat. That would put to rest most of my concerns.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-08 Thread David Roberson

You are making excellent points Jed.  I likewise am concerned that the results 
appear too orderly, but I could modify my thoughts if enough information about 
calibration were presented.  It would be very useful if these guys released the 
amount and quality of data that is coming from the MFMP.  It takes a lot of 
effort to uncover the hidden processes and without several examples to operate 
on one is left wondering whether or not this example is an artifact.


I can not help but to wonder why a curve fit was not conducted upon the data 
since it obviously is not linear.  If it can be proven that the device 
calibrates to a straight line without excess power then perhaps so.



Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Dec 8, 2012 10:46 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's 
constantan wires


Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:

 
Combining data from the table on the left and the new graph (and some plausible 
assumptions) I managed to plot a graph of input power vs excess power:

http://i.imgur.com/L9CV7.png

At the highest point it's 21.8% more output power than the input.



Good job.


Again, this gives me a bad feeling. The curve is too smooth. Too predictable. 
Cold fusion excess heat never happens in a fixed ratio compared to input, or as 
a varying function of input. It is not predictable. With powder, you see 
nothing at low temperatures, and then it appears, but it fluctuates.


This kind of smooth, predictable-looking curve is characteristic of an 
artifact. I am not saying it is an artifact for sure, but it makes me 
uncomfortable.


As I said yesterday, above all, they need calibration data in the same range as 
the anomalous heat. That would put to rest most of my concerns.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

On 2012-12-07 16:02, Jed Rothwell wrote:

I do not like this graph on page 2:

http://www.22passi.it/pirelli/2%20layers%20constantan%20wire%20EDX%20and%20extra%20heat.pdf

There are no calibration points above 0.5 W input, and no live run data
points below that. You have to have calibration points at the same power
levels as the live run. There has to be overlap. If your highest input
power during the live run is 4.6 W (as shown here) you have input 4.6 W
during the calibration, or better yet 5 W.

In an update posted by Daniele Passerini on his 22passi blog, Ubaldo
Mastromatteo, main author of this Celani effect replication at STM labs,
forwarded a graph showing a [one of many?] calibration run:

http://www.22passi.it/pirelli/Grafico%20calibrazione%20test%20per%20Celani.pdf

In short, by using different testing conditions which make the active
wire inert, they obtained a linear relationship of output power with
temperature. Wire performance under conditions which make it active is
then compared to this linear trend curve fit.

A relatively detailed description of how to read this and the previous
graph (for those who didn't get it at first) and other clarifications on
the status of this research at STMicroelectronics was also provided.
It's in Italian, however. Those interested please use Google Translate
at your own risk:

http://22passi.blogspot.it/2012/12/nuove-energie-nella-scuola-contributi-e.html?showComment=1354986585787#c7435918095815006356

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-08 Thread Jed Rothwell

Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:


 In an update posted by Daniele Passerini on his 22passi blog, Ubaldo
 Mastromatteo, main author of this Celani effect replication at STM labs,
 forwarded a graph showing a [one of many?] calibration run:

 http://www.22passi.it/pirelli/**Grafico%20calibrazione%20test%**
 20per%20Celani.pdfhttp://www.22passi.it/pirelli/Grafico%20calibrazione%20test%20per%20Celani.pdf

 In short, by using different testing conditions which make the active wire
 inert, they obtained a linear relationship of output power with
 temperature. Wire performance under conditions which make it active is
 then compared to this linear trend curve fit.


Those are the same data points shown in the other graph.

So, in other words, they are using the active wire at temperatures below
where the effect turns on, and this is their inert or blank calibration.

That's not a good method, in my opinion. They need to try a fully inert
wire made from another substance, calibrating through the full range of
temperatures that the active wire exposed to.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires


On 2012-12-08 22:01, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Those are the same data points shown in the other graph.


Indeed the graphs doesn't show this very clearly, but if you compare 
both of them carefully (check again!), in this case all data points are 
aligned with the linear/no excess heat trend line. This is because... 
[read below]



So, in other words, they are using the active wire at temperatures below
where the effect turns on, and this is their inert or blank calibration.


...actually, they make the active wire inert in a way that 
temperatures where the effect would normally show (the con produzione 
red data points) can be reached without excess heat production and used 
for calibration. No details on how this is achieved have been provided 
yet (although I expect they used a fully hydrogen-unloaded wire under an 
inert gas mixture).



That's not a good method, in my opinion. They need to try a fully inert
wire made from another substance, calibrating through the full range of
temperatures that the active wire exposed to.


They're doing it with a deactivated/inert Celani wire.
After the calibration process they reactivate it by loading it with 
hydrogen.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-08 Thread Jed Rothwell

Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:


 They need to try a fully inert
 wire made from another substance, calibrating through the full range of
 temperatures that the active wire exposed to.


 They're doing it with a deactivated/inert Celani wire.
 After the calibration process they reactivate it by loading it with
 hydrogen.


They are doing this now? Or do you mean they did it before but those data
points are not published yet.

Calibrating with a gas other than hydrogen also seems like a bad idea to
me. They need a wire that is definitely inert, in hydrogen and other
conditions as similar to the active run as they can make them.

It is iron-clad rule that you need to calibrate through the full range of
conditions you run the active experiment in. I hope they have done that.
Without that, there is no proof this is not an instrument artifact.

Mel Miles use to calibrate with Pd which later become activated. It takes a
week or more of loading before it produces heat. During that week he would
run it a various power levels to calibrate. That is an acceptable method,
in my opinion. You can't do that with Ni, since it turns on quickly, if it
is going to work at all.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires


On 2012-12-08 23:27, Jed Rothwell wrote:


They are doing this now? Or do you mean they did it before but those
data points are not published yet.


That's what they did. The graphed calibration data points are in the 
document I previously linked. It's certainly not the full data set. It's 
supposed to be a small addendum to the 2-pages preview posted yesterday:


http://www.22passi.it/pirelli/Grafico%20calibrazione%20test%20per%20Celani.pdf

Data points, although are of different colors, are from the same run. 
That is just their fancy way to show the temperature ranges where 
normally (under activated conditions) there is excess heat and where 
there isn't.


I'm aware there's not enough information to properly understand what's 
and how's their method, but that's the way it is right now. We will know 
more in a week.



Calibrating with a gas other than hydrogen also seems like a bad idea to
me. They need a wire that is definitely inert, in hydrogen and other
conditions as similar to the active run as they can make them [...]


I didn't intend to enter into discussions whether their calibration 
approach is solid or not, just presenting the facts as they're coming in.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-07 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2012-12-05 16:01, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Hello group,


A quick update from Celani forwarded to 22passi:


Dear Colleagues,

just after the chaotic discovering of the name of the original Company
(06 December 2012) that make replication of our experiment, I realised
that some of the documents in the net could not correct because problems
arising in the transfer from pc to MAC and viceversa.

So, I am sending the original document, pdf format.

* Please note the following, specific to the Constantan wire that I gave
to STMicroelectronics (type 2L) for the specific experimentation:

A) The wire is long ONLY 20cm (usually I used 100cm);
B) The layers are ONLY 2 (i.e. type 2L). Usually I used 300-700 layers;
C) The pressure in the chamber is only 0.5bar ABS of pure H2;
D) They made CALORIMETRIC measurements, not only termometry;
E) The SEM-EDX was made, AFTER the H2 absorption, both on reference
section (smooth) and possible active sites (like floweres in the photo).

*The principal investigator that made the experiment is Dr. Ubaldo
Mastromatteo, for long time expert in the field.

* Please, share the information to the Colleagues included in your mailing
list.

Thanks for Your time,

Francesco CELANI


The attached 'original' document in pdf format:
http://www.22passi.it/pirelli/2%20layers%20constantan%20wire%20EDX%20and%20extra%20heat.pdf

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-07 Thread Jed Rothwell

Celani wrote:

A) The wire is long ONLY 20cm (usually I used 100cm);
 B) The layers are ONLY 2 (i.e. type 2L). Usually I used 300-700 layers;


So it is not surprising the reaction is smaller.


D) They made CALORIMETRIC measurements, not only termometry;


He means THERMOMETRY.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-07 Thread Jed Rothwell

I do not like this graph on page 2:

http://www.22passi.it/pirelli/2%20layers%20constantan%20wire%20EDX%20and%20extra%20heat.pdf

There are no calibration points above 0.5 W input, and no live run data
points below that. You have to have calibration points at the same power
levels as the live run. There has to be overlap. If your highest input
power during the live run is 4.6 W (as shown here) you have input 4.6 W
during the calibration, or better yet 5 W.

I do not know what kind of calorimeter they are using, but I have seen many
with a non-linear response, especially at high temperatures. All of the
ones Mizuno used were like that. The calibration bends down at higher
temperatures. The aqua colored line says Linear (no extra power) but
there is no proof it would actually be linear.

I am not happy with this. I need more information to judge it, but it gives
me a bad feeling.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-07 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2012-12-07 16:02, Jed Rothwell wrote:


[...] I am not happy with this. I need more information to judge it, but it
gives me a bad feeling.


I feel your confusion. Hopefully the full slides bound to be presented 
(and released to the public) on December 14th [1] will help clarify this.


Cheers,
S.A.

[1] During this event: 
http://www.22passi.it/coherence2012/Coherence%202012_Brochure.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-07 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax


At 04:07 PM 12/6/2012, Alain Sepeda wrote:

this is why they ask for a tea kettle. Me I call that a shoebox...
put on a table a shoebox with a device that clearly can convince a 
kid of 5, my mother and a 9/11 denialist, and you win.


everything that ask for a PhD, or some honesty, or some intelligence 
is useless.


While I understand the sentiment, I'll point out that there is no 
shoebox device that demonstrates hot fusion, and there is yet to be 
any reproducible or reproduced practical demonstration, but it's 
funded with vast gobs of cash.


That's because the basic theory is understood. However, the 
*engineering* is not yet to the point that hot fusion is a practical 
power source. Yet somehow skeptics expect cold fusion to already have 
reached the point of practical engineering, in spite of their efforts 
to kill funding and suppress publication of results. And anyone who 
thinks that is conspiracy theory simply has not researched what 
actually happened since 1989.


That emotionally-5-year-old physicists exist is not something we can 
do anything about. We can, however, encourage and support research to 
extend the body of knowledge about LENR, to resolve open research 
questions, to provide a basis for further funding. It may be a long 
time before LENR is well-understood, but the kind of modest research 
I'm suggesting could create a basis strong enough to gain serious 
funding for further exploration.


Or, we must always keep in mind, the phantom artifact, the chimera 
that the 5-year olds firmly believe in, without ever having actually 
seen it, might be identified. If, for example, we do work to more 
accurately measure the heat/helium ratio in FP Heat Effect 
experiments, and this work is done thoroughly and carefully, surely 
the existence of artifact would be uncovered with this, and we could 
then stop wasting so much time on the cold fusion myth.


Don't hold your breath, skeptics. The evidence for the heat/helium 
ratio being at least close to the deuterium fusion value is quite 
strong. Steve Krivit has attempted to bash this research as 
supposedly being motivated by a belief in d-d fusion, but even 
W-L's Larsen acknowledges the Q as being quite close to the deuterium 
fusion value, he merely attempts to explain it differently, as some 
mix of neutron reactions that happens to come up with roughly the same figure.


If helium is actually correlated with heat, as a dozen research 
groups have confirmed -- see Storms' Status of cold fusion (2010) 
in Naturwissenschaften, preprint at lenr-canr.org -- a nuclear 
reaction is taking place, there is very little other possibility.


This is not a shoebox experiment to convince a five-year-old. It's 
serious science, and it works even if the reaction fails to appear 
much of the time. We can do serious science with unreliable effects. 
That's the power of correlation.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-06 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2012-12-05 16:13, Akira Shirakawa wrote:


http://i.imgur.com/yA7HS.jpg


I tried making an improved, clearer chart with data from this slide, 
showing the relationship between wire temperature and excess power. I've 
also extrapolated an additional data point at 400 °C:


http://i.imgur.com/pDJoY.png

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote:

Now we have this new result showing ~1 watt of excess heat at some high
 operating power (not stated but sufficient to raise the cell temp to 350C).
 By implication, I am asked to believe that the team making the measurement
 can somehow achieve absolute accuracy significantly better than MFMP have
 achieved with their open, consultative, clearly documented process.

 Sorry, I choose not to believe this right now.


On what basis? Do you know anything about their calorimetry? With the right
kind of calorimeter, researchers can measure 0.01 W with confidence. Rob
Duncan knows how to measure picowatts (10E-12 W).

Unless you know a great deal about their equipment, you are presumptuous to
reject their claim out of hand.

The people at MFM are doing a good job, but their equipment is not
expensive or high precision.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-06 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax


At 02:54 AM 12/6/2012, you wrote:

Push noise down or raise the signal a high up- this is the basic option.
The first choice is passive, the second active.
Which one will one lead to useful Cold Fusion?


Cart before the horse, Peter. The first issues are scientific, and 
exploring the parameter space is *more difficult* if, at the same 
time, high signal is required. Pushing noise down by careful 
experimental design can save a lot of money and time.


This is the reality, Peter: we know that the FPHE (Fleischmann-Pons 
Heat Effect) is real. We don't need massive results for that, the 
best work and most conclusive work has been with modest heat, but 
then correlated with helium production. We can definitely use more 
accuracy in this, but the limits have been on helium 
capture/collection/measurement, not on heat measurement, the accuracy 
with heat is generally already adequate.


Sure, some people are going to work on increasing heat production, 
but increasing *absolute heat production*, we know, can easily be 
done with a reaction with known characteristics, simply by scaling 
up. However, there is a serious problem here.


If the exact conditions for heat production are not known, if they 
depend on very difficult-to-control conditions, such as the exact 
size and number of cracks in palladium deuteride, as appears to be 
the case with the FPHE, then your scaled-up experiment might 
unexpectedly produce a lot more heat than you expected. It's 
dangerous. Pons and Fleischmann scaled *down* for exactly this reason.


And running experiments by remote control behind blast barriers 
raises costs even further.


No, first things first. We need much more exploration of the 
parameter space. Once we know what conditions are effective for 
setting up the reactions, we can then start to scale up, but that's 
really the last step.



The main trend today is silent implicit desperation.


No. It's realism: until we know the *mechanism* for the FPHE, we need 
basic research, and that can be -- and should be -- small-scale. If 
it's small scale, it makes it possible to run many more variations on 
an experiment, simultaneously, making the discovery of optimal 
operating conditions come sooner, most likely. Rossi allegedly ran a 
thousand experiments before he found his secret sauce. While I have 
no idea if he really found a secret sauce, that part of his story is 
plausible, at least.


As far as I can tell, we don't know and have very little clue as to 
what the ash might be from NiH reactions.


What we need for heat is enough heat to be satisfied that the 
reaction is real and the heat is not artifact. Sure, eventually, we 
will want much more than that. We want enough heat that the reaction 
leaves behind enough ash to be detected. If the ash is deuterium, 
this isn't going to be easy, but running experiments longer is about 
as useful as running them hotter.


First things first.

In a similar way, reliability is certainly desirable. However, if 
we don't have reliability, if, say, half our experiments shown 
nothing while the other half, seemingly the same, show significant 
heat, we are not stopped and we need not -- and should not -- demand 
reliability before proceeding. Heat/helium was conclusively 
demonstrated with not-reliable experiments, that is the power of 
correlation. The dead cells serve as controls, such that the hidden 
variable is all that is varying, plus, of course, the output.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:


 Cart before the horse, Peter. The first issues are scientific, and
 exploring the parameter space is *more difficult* if, at the same time,
 high signal is required. Pushing noise down by careful experimental
 design can save a lot of money and time.


I agree. I think the NRL in Washington goes overboard with this approach,
but generally speaking, I agree.

Sometimes you can measure a lower level of heat with more confidence than
higher level. Small-scale calorimeters work better. See:

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

This could be why STMicroelectronics (a.k.a. Big International
Company) is using a smaller amount of wire than Celani, with a different
cell and calorimeter configuration (according to Celani).



 If the exact conditions for heat production are not known, if they depend
 on very difficult-to-control conditions, such as the exact size and number
 of cracks in palladium deuteride, as appears to be the case with the FPHE,
 then your scaled-up experiment might unexpectedly produce a lot more heat
 than you expected. It's dangerous. Pons and Fleischmann scaled *down* for
 exactly this reason.


Exactly right.



 In a similar way, reliability is certainly desirable. However, if we
 don't have reliability, if, say, half our experiments shown nothing while
 the other half, seemingly the same, show significant heat, we are not
 stopped and we need not -- and should not -- demand reliability before
 proceeding. Heat/helium was conclusively demonstrated with not-reliable
 experiments, that is the power of correlation. The dead cells serve as
 controls, such that the hidden variable is all that is varying, plus, of
 course, the output.


Right. And important. Work with what you have, don't hold out for something
better but unobtainable.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-06 Thread Peter Gluck

Dear Abd,
perhaps we will discuss this in a separate thread, here the main subject is
the success of one of my best friends Francesco Celani and he has surely
the vision of how to go further and his strategy of doing the next steps
and so on. Very probably such confirmations of increasing reliability will
come from many places.

I am writing now an essay entitled Is Cold Fusion natural? and this will
be an opportunity  to establish if it is a better way to invest creativity
in more sensitive and precise measurements or trying, even empirically to
enhance and and stabilize the heat effect.
Peter

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:

 At 02:54 AM 12/6/2012, you wrote:

 Push noise down or raise the signal a high up- this is the basic option.
 The first choice is passive, the second active.
 Which one will one lead to useful Cold Fusion?


 Cart before the horse, Peter. The first issues are scientific, and
 exploring the parameter space is *more difficult* if, at the same time,
 high signal is required. Pushing noise down by careful experimental
 design can save a lot of money and time.

 This is the reality, Peter: we know that the FPHE (Fleischmann-Pons Heat
 Effect) is real. We don't need massive results for that, the best work and
 most conclusive work has been with modest heat, but then correlated with
 helium production. We can definitely use more accuracy in this, but the
 limits have been on helium capture/collection/**measurement, not on heat
 measurement, the accuracy with heat is generally already adequate.

 Sure, some people are going to work on increasing heat production, but
 increasing *absolute heat production*, we know, can easily be done with a
 reaction with known characteristics, simply by scaling up. However, there
 is a serious problem here.

 If the exact conditions for heat production are not known, if they depend
 on very difficult-to-control conditions, such as the exact size and number
 of cracks in palladium deuteride, as appears to be the case with the FPHE,
 then your scaled-up experiment might unexpectedly produce a lot more heat
 than you expected. It's dangerous. Pons and Fleischmann scaled *down* for
 exactly this reason.

 And running experiments by remote control behind blast barriers raises
 costs even further.

 No, first things first. We need much more exploration of the parameter
 space. Once we know what conditions are effective for setting up the
 reactions, we can then start to scale up, but that's really the last step.


  The main trend today is silent implicit desperation.


 No. It's realism: until we know the *mechanism* for the FPHE, we need
 basic research, and that can be -- and should be -- small-scale. If it's
 small scale, it makes it possible to run many more variations on an
 experiment, simultaneously, making the discovery of optimal operating
 conditions come sooner, most likely. Rossi allegedly ran a thousand
 experiments before he found his secret sauce. While I have no idea if he
 really found a secret sauce, that part of his story is plausible, at least.

 As far as I can tell, we don't know and have very little clue as to what
 the ash might be from NiH reactions.

 What we need for heat is enough heat to be satisfied that the reaction is
 real and the heat is not artifact. Sure, eventually, we will want much more
 than that. We want enough heat that the reaction leaves behind enough ash
 to be detected. If the ash is deuterium, this isn't going to be easy, but
 running experiments longer is about as useful as running them hotter.

 First things first.

 In a similar way, reliability is certainly desirable. However, if we
 don't have reliability, if, say, half our experiments shown nothing while
 the other half, seemingly the same, show significant heat, we are not
 stopped and we need not -- and should not -- demand reliability before
 proceeding. Heat/helium was conclusively demonstrated with not-reliable
 experiments, that is the power of correlation. The dead cells serve as
 controls, such that the hidden variable is all that is varying, plus, of
 course, the output.




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-06 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax


At 02:21 PM 12/6/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Right. And important. Work with what you have, don't hold out for 
something better but unobtainable.


Ah, my cells will produce *much more important results* if I use a 
cathode wire made out of unobtainium. It's very expensive, though. 
Send me a check for $1,500,000 and I'll try to get some. I only need a little.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-06 Thread Jeff Berkowitz

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote:

 Now we have this new result showing ~1 watt of excess heat at some high
 operating power (not stated but sufficient to raise the cell temp to 350C).
 By implication, I am asked to believe that the team making the measurement
 can somehow achieve absolute accuracy significantly better than MFMP have
 achieved with their open, consultative, clearly documented process.

 Sorry, I choose not to believe this right now.


 On what basis? Do you know anything about their calorimetry?


No, and that is my point.
Jeff

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-06 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax


At 02:35 PM 12/6/2012, Peter Gluck wrote:

Dear Abd,
perhaps we will discuss this in a separate thread, here the main 
subject is the success of one of my best friends Francesco Celani 
and he has surely the vision of how to go further and his strategy 
of doing the next steps and so on. Very probably such confirmations 
of increasing reliability will come from many places.


I am writing now an essay entitled Is Cold Fusion natural? and 
this will be an opportunity  to establish if it is a better way to 
invest creativity in more sensitive and precise measurements or 
trying, even empirically to enhance and and stabilize the heat effect.

Peter


As NiH work goes, of late, Celani's project is small-scale.

My guess, though, is that the experiment might be even easier as a 
demonstration if it were smaller-scale. The longer wire may break 
more often, for example. One does not gain heat per unit surface area 
with a longer wire. I won't go into detail, but you might get the idea.


I have an experiment that was run once, by a student. The kit I made 
is shown being received in the movie The Believers. The student ran 
it. This was a Galileo protocol replication looking for neutrons, 
using a gold wire cathode and LR-115 detectors, instead of the silver 
wire of the original Galileo project, and instead of CR-39 as in 
later SPAWAR publications reporting neutrons most prolifically from 
gold wire cathodes. (But the levels were still very low.)


The SSNTDs were damaged in etching, and it is possible that they were 
also underdeveloped. I don't see, so far, evidence for substantial 
neutron radiation, i.e., proton knock-on tracks, but analysis is 
still continuing. I've seen *one* triple-track, from apparent C-12 
breakup. That could easily be from background neutrons.


In any case, this is a wire. In the Galileo project, the wire was two 
inches long. But only part of the wire was close to CR-39, and to 
demonstrate the effect, only a short exposed length would be 
necessary. Gold, palladium chloride, heavy water -- and platinum for 
the anode -- are all very expensive.


So I scaled down. This project used two half-inch lengths of exposed 
gold wire, in two sections. One was observable with a microscope from 
outside the cell. The other had LR-115 outside the cell on the cell 
wall adjacent to the wire. Since there was half the length of wire, 
the amount of palladium chloride in the electrolyte was halved, and 
the currents were halved, and the total amount of heavy water was 
halved, thus keeping conditions *along the length of wire* the same 
as with the Galileo project protocol. The cell cost, then, was about 
half of what it would have otherwise been, allowing the same budget 
to run twice as many cells.


The danger of changing conditions is that somehow, some unanticipated 
effect will scotch the results. That is a serious danger with cold 
fusion experiments. But my judgment was that this particular change 
would not. The use of LR-115 is more serious, LR-115 has a different 
range of energies detected, and if the particles are too high in 
energy *they will not show*. That can be addressed, and deeper 
etching might be a part of that. I can see, on these chips, what 
looks like noise, or more clearly, possible tracks that have not 
etched all the way through the 6 micron detector layer.


I intend to run this experiment with many more variations. The 
original run was very successful in one way: the cell, with only 12.5 
grams of heavy water in it, did not run out of heavy water with the 
protocol used (at half-current). That was a major worry. Yes, more 
heavy water could have been put it, but that requires disturbing the 
cell, perhaps, and plating tends to fall off


There is other work to be done with this experiment. Heat is not 
(yet) being measured. It's possible, though, that a very sensitive 
isoperibolic technique could be used. Bottom line, this is fun. And 
some useful results *might* pop out along the way. There is a search 
on for accessory effects, that is, signals that the FPHE is being 
triggered, but these are not nuclear effects, rather, they are, 
ideally, measurable easily. Effects like sound or light or resistance 
changes, or the like. Get some of those going and all the work will 
start to accelerate, as detecting the effect -- and its size -- may 
become quicker and simpler, even at small scale.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote:

Sorry, I choose not to believe this right now.


 On what basis? Do you know anything about their calorimetry?


 No, and that is my point.


If you do not know, then the correct attitude is not to doubt the results,
and not to believe them either. You should be a neutral skeptic, awaiting
more results.

I lean toward believing them because I have seen previous research from
STMicroelectronics and I believe they usually do quality work. That isn't
much to go on, but then again I am not saying I am certain it is real, am I?

As I said, it is presumptuous for you to assume that their calorimeter is
no more sensitive than the MFM instrument. That makes no sense. Most
calorimeters are more sensitive than ~1 W. The MFM one is accurate but not
very precise. You also have no reason to suppose STMicroelectronics do not
know what they are doing.

It is okay to doubt a result. It is fine to question results, express
reservations, or reserve judgement. However, as I said the other day to
David Robinson, you may be a gifted amateur. You may understand these issue
better than 99% of the reading public. But unless you have worked day in
and day out for many years with the equipment or the algorithms, I think
you have no business declaring that a field of research is a train wreck
or that you can choose not to believe a result. This is arrogant. That
kind of arrogance is the source of our problems in cold fusion.

It goes without saying that some fields of research are train wrecks, and
that researchers at large companies such as STMicroelectronics do sometimes
make stupid mistakes. So you and Robinson might be right. But if you are
right, it is a lucky guess. You have no rigorous proof.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-06 Thread Alain Sepeda

Scientifically you are perfectly right, and i learned much about that
counter intuitive fact.

however we are not in a lab but in an open air psychiatric hospital.

the problem is not to convince scientists, but to convinces blinds stubborn
kids of 5 with a tenure.
The only way to convince the opponents is to show something that can
convince an dishonest kid of 5, because those pretended adults use all
their mental capacities to find excuse not to believe in fact they usually
accept because of their competences...

Even if some experiments can raise question (Jed and Abd state many such),
many repeated arguments are totally aberrant for someone with scientific
culture. They switch off their scientific brain when saying that on LENR.

this is why they ask for a tea kettle. Me I call that a shoebox...
put on a table a shoebox with a device that clearly can convince a kid of
5, my mother and a 9/11 denialist, and you win.

everything that ask for a PhD, or some honesty, or some intelligence is
useless.

2012/12/6 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:


 Cart before the horse, Peter. The first issues are scientific, and
 exploring the parameter space is *more difficult* if, at the same time,
 high signal is required. Pushing noise down by careful experimental
 design can save a lot of money and time.


 I agree. I think the NRL in Washington goes overboard with this approach,
 but generally speaking, I agree.

 Sometimes you can measure a lower level of heat with more confidence than
 higher level. Small-scale calorimeters work better. See:

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

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:

Scientifically you are perfectly right, and i learned much about that
 counter intuitive fact.

 however we are not in a lab but in an open air psychiatric hospital.

 the problem is not to convince scientists, but to convinces blinds
 stubborn kids of 5 with a tenure.


Well said. 5-year-old kids with tenure is a good way to describe the
opposition.

You are right, and Peter is right that it would be better for everyone if
we could produce a large, easily measured reaction. No one disputes that.
All else being equal, a larger reaction is better than a smaller one until
you reach the point where the reaction becomes dangerous. I think Rossi
reached that point and went beyond it with 16 kW and 0.5 MW reactions. That
is not necessary! Frankly, that's nuts. But it would be nice if we could
get a ~20 W reaction. That is what Celani believed he had at ICCF17.

Celani might have been right. Perhaps that was ~20 W. Unfortunately, the
calorimetry was so crude we cannot be sure. If I have to choose between
measuring 20 W with Celani's crude calorimetry, and measuring 1 W with
superb calorimetry that leaves no doubt the effect is real, I would choose
the latter.

In some ways, a small calorimeter is more accurate and more reliable, so a
short wire producing one or two watts may be better than a 1 m wire
producing 20 Watts. That just happens to be how calorimeters work in the
present era. You might say this a coincidence. Future calorimeters might
work better with large-scale reactions.

Yes, a more powerful reaction would be nice, but we must work with what we
have, as Abd stresses. We will die of old age if we sit around waiting UPS
to deliver a $1.5 million package of unobtainium.

One of the cardinal rules of being a good military leader or a good
politician is to make do with what you have, and to find a way to win by
subterfuge if you do not have a material or strategic advantage. Cold
fusion is very much a political fight, so we should take lessons from these
disciplines.

In ancient times a general marched his army through a gap between two
mountains, in a place visible to the enemy army. He had the troops march
through with their spears glittering in sunlight. Then they doubled back
through a lower valley, out of sight, to march through the high road again,
and again. The same troops went through the pass five times, making the
enemy think he had five times more troops that he really had. The enemy
commanders fled without giving battle. That is the easiest and best way to
win. Sun Tzu describes many similar techniques. The point is, you find a
way to outwit the opposition, and you use what you have, rather than
wishing you had more.

American military commanders prefer to have a huge material advantage,
which they often waste, or fail to use. This goes back to the Civil War.
Lincoln said, sending reinforcements to McClellan is like shoveling flies
across a barn.

- Jed

[Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires


Hello group,

According to a recent email by Francesco Celani posted on 22passi, it 
appears that thermal anomalies from his treated constantan wires hav 
been successfully and independently validated by some researchers 
affiliated with a major multinational corporation.


Source (in italian):

http://22passi.blogspot.it/2012/12/nuove-energie-nella-scuola-contributi-e.html

The email (hand-tweaked Google translation):


from: Francesco.Celani
to NextMe, 22 steps, EnergeticAmbiente, Vincenzo Valenzi
Date: December 4, 2012 19:07
Subject: 2 Slides end of the meeting about the replica.

Dear Colleagues,

as requested, I am attaching a copy of the 2 slides about the first INDEPENDENT 
replication of thermal anomalies using nano-Constantan wires, according to our 
procedures regarding the preparation of the material.
The experiments were carried out in complete autonomy, by researchers (experts) 
affiliated to a major international industry.

Please note the following:

- The reactor used is COMPLETELY different from the one we developed and used. 
As a result, the probability of a systematic error in the measurements has 
become highly unlikely;
- Calorimetric measurements [were performed] and are not only thermometric (as 
used by us, in the specific case);
- They used only 20 cm of wire, ie a fifth of that used by us;
- The wire used is a base, type 2L, ie with only TWO layers of nanomaterial. 
Usually use wires with 200-700 layers.
- Regarding the thermal anomalies, they begin with temperatures higher than 
those typically found with wires of 200-700 layers. The magnitude of the 
anomalies, normalized to a standard [wire] length, is approximately half of 
those seen with the wires from 200-700 layers.

The mechanical robustness of the wires seems to be unchanged.
Apart from my brief preview, the data SHOULD be presented and thoroughly 
discussed before December 15, by the authors of the measurements.

Thanks for your attention,
Francesco CELANI


The slides reportedly coming from a major multinational corporation:

http://www.22passi.it/pirelli/pirelli_wire_a.pptx

By manually editing the file and displacing the cyan boxes (XYZ and 
Big international Company it becomes apparent that the company is 
STMicroelectronics.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires


On 2012-12-05 16:01, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Hello group,


An improved version of Celani's ICCF17 presentation in a scientific 
paper format was also posted on the same blog:


http://www.22passi.it/pirelli/ICCF17CelaniArtD.pdf

These are the slides mentioned in the opening post, edited to show the 
name of the major international company:


http://i.imgur.com/yA7HS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/cOTvo.jpg

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-05 Thread Terry Blanton

That wire looks to have hair and coral growing on it.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-05 Thread Teslaalset

Powerpoint file seems corrupt.
I can't open it.


On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Akira Shirakawa
shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 2012-12-05 16:01, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

 Hello group,


 An improved version of Celani's ICCF17 presentation in a scientific paper
 format was also posted on the same blog:

 http://www.22passi.it/pirelli/**ICCF17CelaniArtD.pdfhttp://www.22passi.it/pirelli/ICCF17CelaniArtD.pdf

 These are the slides mentioned in the opening post, edited to show the
 name of the major international company:

 http://i.imgur.com/yA7HS.jpg
 http://i.imgur.com/cOTvo.jpg

 Cheers,
 S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-05 Thread Terry Blanton

Yeah, I got all sorts of error messages; but, kept hitting enter and it opened.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote:
 Powerpoint file seems corrupt.
 I can't open it.


 On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 On 2012-12-05 16:01, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

 Hello group,


 An improved version of Celani's ICCF17 presentation in a scientific paper
 format was also posted on the same blog:

 http://www.22passi.it/pirelli/ICCF17CelaniArtD.pdf

 These are the slides mentioned in the opening post, edited to show the
 name of the major international company:

 http://i.imgur.com/yA7HS.jpg
 http://i.imgur.com/cOTvo.jpg

 Cheers,
 S.A.

RE: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-05 Thread Jones Beene

Akira,

Is the implication that ST Microelectronics is the validator? 

One wonders if they are an investor as well? Makes sense in a way ...

They are a Swiss-based $10 billion company best known for the recent purchase 
of Ericsson. President and CEO: Carlo Bozotti ... sounds like an Italian 
connection.

http://www.st.com/internet/com/about_st/st_company_information.jsp?WT.svl=about_st_header




-Original Message-
From: 

 Hello group,

An improved version of Celani's ICCF17 presentation in a scientific 
paper format was also posted on the same blog:

http://www.22passi.it/pirelli/ICCF17CelaniArtD.pdf

These are the slides mentioned in the opening post, edited to show the 
name of the major international company:

http://i.imgur.com/yA7HS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/cOTvo.jpg

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-05 Thread Teslaalset

STMicroelectronics have patents in this field of research I found earlier.
So, it's not so strange to see them involved.


On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Akira,

 Is the implication that ST Microelectronics is the validator?

 One wonders if they are an investor as well? Makes sense in a way ...

 They are a Swiss-based $10 billion company best known for the recent
 purchase of Ericsson. President and CEO: Carlo Bozotti ... sounds like an
 Italian connection.


 http://www.st.com/internet/com/about_st/st_company_information.jsp?WT.svl=about_st_header




 -Original Message-
 From:

  Hello group,

 An improved version of Celani's ICCF17 presentation in a scientific
 paper format was also posted on the same blog:

 http://www.22passi.it/pirelli/ICCF17CelaniArtD.pdf

 These are the slides mentioned in the opening post, edited to show the
 name of the major international company:

 http://i.imgur.com/yA7HS.jpg
 http://i.imgur.com/cOTvo.jpg

 Cheers,
 S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-05 Thread Jed Rothwell

Ain't that nice!

This should encourage the M.F.M. people to keep at it.

Celani says they used a completely different reactor. That's good. I
assume that means a different cell configuration that allows some other
method of calorimetry.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-05 Thread Peter Gluck

Dear Akira,
I cannot open the file with the results- how great is the excess heat?
Let's see what is doing Quantum Heat now.And other groups tryingto
reproduce Francesco's method.

Peter

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote:

 STMicroelectronics have patents in this field of research I found earlier.
 So, it's not so strange to see them involved.


 On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Akira,

 Is the implication that ST Microelectronics is the validator?

 One wonders if they are an investor as well? Makes sense in a way ...

 They are a Swiss-based $10 billion company best known for the recent
 purchase of Ericsson. President and CEO: Carlo Bozotti ... sounds like an
 Italian connection.


 http://www.st.com/internet/com/about_st/st_company_information.jsp?WT.svl=about_st_header




 -Original Message-
 From:

  Hello group,

 An improved version of Celani's ICCF17 presentation in a scientific
 paper format was also posted on the same blog:

 http://www.22passi.it/pirelli/ICCF17CelaniArtD.pdf

 These are the slides mentioned in the opening post, edited to show the
 name of the major international company:

 http://i.imgur.com/yA7HS.jpg
 http://i.imgur.com/cOTvo.jpg

 Cheers,
 S.A.







-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires


On 2012-12-05 16:50, Peter Gluck wrote:

Dear Akira,
I cannot open the file with the results-


Try this:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/48w8fsbd5jigwr8/pirelli_wire_a.pdf


how great is the excess heat?


1.16W at 350 °C

Wire mass = 0.055 g
length = 200 mm
diameter = 0.2 mm

Input power not disclosed, but I guess it's the usual 48W. The excess 
heat is small, but calorimetry should be sound, and the wire is reported 
to be significantly less active than normal ones, in addition to being 
shorter.



Let's see what is doing Quantum Heat now.And other groups tryingto
reproduce Francesco's method.


I think this will motivate them going forward.

Cheers,
S.A.

RE: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-05 Thread Jones Beene

Did you find a particular patent - which is similar to Celani?

 

A google patent search for

 

assignee:stmicroelectronics hydrogen

 

returns 8000 hits - mostly for fuel cells. Nothing specific turns up .
although .

 

It makes sense that in fuel cell RD - STM could have inadvertently found
actual gain, such as when nickel nanopowder was used.

 

From: Teslaalset 

 

STMicroelectronics have patents in this field of research I found earlier.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires

2012-12-05 Thread Peter Gluck

Thank you- this worked. The efffect of the proper
nanostructures - as Piantelli has demonstrated it first - is a scientific
certainty.
Peter

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Akira Shirakawa
shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 2012-12-05 16:50, Peter Gluck wrote:

 Dear Akira,
 I cannot open the file with the results-


 Try this:

 https://www.dropbox.com/s/**48w8fsbd5jigwr8/pirelli_wire_**a.pdfhttps://www.dropbox.com/s/48w8fsbd5jigwr8/pirelli_wire_a.pdf


  how great is the excess heat?


 1.16W at 350 °C

 Wire mass = 0.055 g
 length = 200 mm
 diameter = 0.2 mm

 Input power not disclosed, but I guess it's the usual 48W. The excess heat
 is small, but calorimetry should be sound, and the wire is reported to be
 significantly less active than normal ones, in addition to being shorter.


  Let's see what is doing Quantum Heat now.And other groups tryingto
 reproduce Francesco's method.


 I think this will motivate them going forward.

 Cheers,
 S.A.




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires


On 2012-12-05 16:01, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Hello group,


The results of this independent validation will likely be presented 
during this event, on December 14th:


http://www.22passi.it/coherence2012/Coherence%202012_Brochure.pdf

Have a look at the bottom left portion of the second page of this 
program. Search for STMicroelectronics.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires