Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
[This was sent directly to Milstone by accident, because of the way his e-mail response is set up. This happens at Vortex from time to time.] John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com mailto:john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: From the report: The three-phase power cables were checked and connected directly to the electrical outlet. It was established and verified that no other cable was present and that all connections were normal. The ground cable was disconnected before measurements began. It’s clear that the authors of the report were using the term “cable” to refer to a single, insulated wire. They were looking for extra wires. Nothing in their description even suggests that they were looking for extra conductors in a single wire. This is incorrect. They mean wire here, not the whole insulated cable. We know this because: 1. The only way to measure voltage is to expose the bare wire and attach a probe to it, as shown in Fig. 1. It is NOT POSSIBLE to measure voltage any other way. 2. If there were two conductors separately insulated and hidden the researchers would surely notice this when they open the wire to attach the voltmeter. Or if they did not notice it, the two wires now exposed would short out after the researchers cut the insulation. 3. In an insulated electric 3-phase cable, all four wires are bundled together under the insulation. The ground wire is not individually broken out, so you cannot disconnect it, as they did here. The only way to disconnect it is to cut off the outer insulation and expose the individual wires. (You also have to check the voltage to make sure you have disconnected ground.) The device in the photos is a tube containing Rossi’s magic gadget AND conventional electrical resistance heaters. There is no way to prove that the heat being radiated from the surface came from the E-Cat and not the electric heaters. The heat from the e-Cat has to come from both. It is not possible to isolate a source of heat when two are present. Heat is heat, and it is indistinguishable whether it comes from an electric heater, friction, a flame, or a nuclear reaction. However, in this case we know exactly how much heat is added to the system by the electric input power: 300 W. This can be measured with high precision and absolute confidence. We know that 900 W is coming out. Therefore, 600 W must be anomalous heat. This is how all calorimeters work. No calorimeter can distinguish the source of heat. When there are two sources of heat in a reactor, the calorimeter can never tell you how much heat each one is contributing _unless_ you have a method of measuring input to one of the sources. In this case, we have that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
[Sent directly to Milstone by accident] I wrote: 3. In an insulated electric 3-phase cable, all four wires are bundled together under the insulation. Correction: all 5. As noted there is neutral and ground. The point is, you cannot disconnect individual ones without exposing them all. You cannot measure voltage on them without exposing them all. It is not possible that Levi et al. meant cable meaning the entire insulated bundle of wires. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
Since Jed decided to debate me in absentia here on the Vortex, I thought I'd respond. Rothwell said: No, as Ian Walker already pointed out to you, it says in the Appendix they checked for it. Also they told me they did. Figure 1 shows a direct connection to each of the 3 wires (for voltage) in Suggesting that a schematic wiring diagram “proves” the exact details of the physical setup is silly. Are you suggesting that the connection for phase 3 is about 1/3 closer to the control box as the connection for phase 1? I hope not. From the report: The three-phase power cables were checked and connected directly to the electrical outlet. It was established and verified that no other cable was present and that all connections were normal. The ground cable was disconnected before measurements began. It’s clear that the authors of the report were using the term “cable” to refer to a single, insulated wire. They were looking for extra wires. Nothing in their description even suggests that they were looking for extra conductors in a single wire. The two “cheese” videos would easily pass the precautions as described. The creator of those videos didn’t need an extra “cable”, and was able to measure both continuity and voltage with the wiring trick in place. Rothwell said: He keeps insisting we can’t be sure the heat originates from inside the cell because they measure the temperature at the outside wall. You are distorting what I said. My reading of the report suggests that the actual “E-Cat” is a metal tube with sealed ends, which slides into the central cavity of a conventional tube furnace. But even if I was mistaken on this point, it doesn’t affect my argument. The device in the photos is a tube containing Rossi’s magic gadget AND conventional electrical resistance heaters. There is no way to prove that the heat being radiated from the surface came from the E-Cat and not the electric heaters. The testers used a finicky, 4th-power function to try to estimate how much heat is being produced. This is a dodgy way of determining how much of the heat came from the actual E-Cat, even if they could be certain that there wasn’t a trick to feed in extra power (and they failed miserably to prove that). But, all they know is that the device on average, produced about 2.5 times as much power as they measured going in. If their input measurements were wrong, then their estimated COP was wrong. Rothwell said: “There is not an extra wire. It is not dead. This is 3-phase power. Please look that up if you do not understand the concept. Look that up yourself. 3-phase power has three HOT lines, PLUS a neutral, plus a GROUND (which, according to the report, was disconnected). The report indicates that, although the device was connected to a 3-phase power outlet, only 2 phases were being used. They specifically state (and show in Fig. 3 of the Appendix) that only 2 phases were supposedly carrying any current. The 3rd phase wire “appears” dead. If this is correct, then Rossi was only using 2 of the 3 phases, and only for 1/3 of the time (i.e. a 33% duty cycle). Each of the “non-dead” phases was drawing about 400 Watts when turned on. At the very least, it is very suspicious that Rossi included a “dead” wire between the power source and the device, unless it wasn’t really “dead”. If the wiring trick had been used on that 3rd phase wire (the one that appeared to be dead), we can make a prediction about the apparent COP from such a deception. Let’s assume that the 3rd phase was carrying the same current as the other two phases (400 W), and that Rossi left it turned on 100% of the time (better for the fraud, and less likely to be detected than if it were being cycled on and off). So, instead of 800 Watts (2 phases of 400 Watts each) for 33% of the time (average Power: 266.6 Watts), the real electrical input would be 1200 Watts (2 + 1 hidden phase) for 33% of the time plus 400 Watts (1 hidden phase) for 66% of the time (average Power: 666.6 Watts), for an apparent COP of 2.5 (really a COP of 1.0). That’s exactly what the report claims to have found. So, without hidden laser beams or magic coatings to mask the power coming out, and without the need for LENR, we only need a single hidden conductor, capable of carrying 400 Watts, to fake the reported results.
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
Also, Millstone has apparently never heard of the second law of thermodynamics. He keeps insisting we can't be sure the heat originates from inside the cell because they measure the temperature at the outside wall. He said, quote: The actual E-Cat, supposedly producing the 'excess' heat, was a separate cylinder inside the electric oven. The testers only observed the temperature of the outside of the oven. The fact that you [Jed] can’t get this simple fact right shows how sloppy and biased your comments are. . . . Very odd. I explained, but I doubt he understands: Whatever was inside the oven has to be the source of anomalous heat. The oven as a whole was the hottest object in the room. Heat only goes from a hotter body to a cooler body. This is elementary thermodynamics. . . . He reminds me of a Wikipedia editor. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Also, Millstone has apparently never heard of the second law of thermodynamics. He keeps insisting we can't be sure the heat originates from inside the cell because they measure the temperature at the outside wall. He said, quote: The actual E-Cat, supposedly producing the 'excess' heat, was a separate cylinder inside the electric oven. The testers only observed the temperature of the outside of the oven. The fact that you [Jed] can’t get this simple fact right shows how sloppy and biased your comments are. . . . Perhaps he is worried about fraud and imagines the Ecat is being heated externally by infrared lasers or some other nefarious device. Very odd. I explained, but I doubt he understands: Whatever was inside the oven has to be the source of anomalous heat. The oven as a whole was the hottest object in the room. Heat only goes from a hotter body to a cooler body. This is elementary thermodynamics. . . . Irrespective of fraud, he is technically right. We don't know what the temperature is at the centre of the Ecat. The production of energy and the transformation of the energy into heat do not have to occur in the same place. For example if a bristle brush is spun inside a tube the walls the tube will get hot from friction but the heat is not flowing from the centre of the brush. Harry
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Irrespective of fraud, he is technically right. We don't know what the temperature is at the centre of the Ecat. Yes. I went on to say that. I did not quote my entire response. I also said: . . . Presumably the anomalous reaction occurred in the inner cylinder, but thermodynamically it makes no difference where, exactly, it originated. It might have been in the oven but that would not affect the conclusion. All the heat must emerge from the surface. All is accounted for. He did not understand. He again accused me of lying. He does not seem to know much about heat. He also thinks that the third wire is extra or dead. I wrote to him: There is not an extra wire. It is not dead. This is 3-phase power. Please look that up if you do not understand the concept. Please do not touch an exposed wire in a 3-phase plug. It is not 'dead.' It will shock you. People sometimes make assertions with assurance and a loud voice inversely proportional to their knowledge. As Yeats put it, in the Second Coming: The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:49:37 PM Irrespective of fraud, he is technically right. We don't know what the temperature is at the centre of the Ecat. The production of energy and the transformation of the energy into heat do not have to occur in the same place. For example if a bristle brush is spun inside a tube the walls the tube will get hot from friction but the heat is not flowing from the centre of the brush. Harry Not right, because it doesn't matter for a black box test. There's only one place for the heat to get OUT -- the surface. I've nearly finished my Spice thermal simulation with actual material values (as far as I have them). If the thermalization is on the nickel powder ... then things are complicated : will the powder melt? But once the heat gets to the inner steel cylinder, there's very little temperature drop to the outside, because Corundum has almost the same (or greater!) thermal conductivity as steel. (I'm not sure it IS solid corundum ... one of the little details missing from the paper).
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:49:37 PM Irrespective of fraud, he is technically right. We don't know what the temperature is at the centre of the Ecat. . . . Not right, because it doesn't matter for a black box test. There's only one place for the heat to get OUT -- the surface. Well now, Harry has a good point. We do not know the temperature at the centre (center). I sure would like to know it! I suppose that is where your Spice thermal simulation comes in. It should tell us how hot it got. That might be valuable information indeed. You reiterated the points I was trying to make to Milstone over at Forbes: it is a black box test and there is only one way out. He doesn't get it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: If the thermalization is on the nickel powder ... then things are complicated : will the powder melt? This was one of Joshua Cude's questions. It's a very interesting question. I think it was passed by too quickly during the Armageddon mele. Eric
[Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
I do not know why I bother but I went to the trouble to post a message here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/06/15/psstt-want-an-e-cat-lenr-generator-for-free/ The point I am making is so elementary it boggles my mind that anyone overlooks it, or disagrees, but people often do. It reminds me of the elementary logical fallacies that people have been making since ancient times, and still make a million times a day, such as an appeal to the consequence of a belief. I do not understand why they don't teach children to avoid making these mistakes in third grade! I guess it is because adults make them so often, especially politicians, pundits, business leaders and other blowhards. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ My message: Mary Yugo and others here claim that Rossi may be using some trick to fool Levi et al. in their recently published paper, “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder.” Yugo has not specified what that trick might be. She admits she does not know. That makes her assertion unscientific. That is, one that cannot be tested or falsified. She and other critics say there might be a method of fooling a wattmeter but they do not know what that method is, and they cannot describe it. Such a method is functionally equivalent to a configuration error. I think it is highly unlikely that a modern wattmeter in the hands of experts would not catch an error that makes 900 W look like 300 W. Anyway, until you find an expert in electrical engineering who can propose an actual method that can be checked for and either confirmed or falsified, you have no case. The assertion that “there might be a hidden trick” or “there might be an undiscovered error” applies equally well to every experiment since Newton. It is an empty assertion; meaningless, and unprovable. (Some other critics claim they do know a method, but the methods they have proposed would not work, mainly because the wires are exposed to measure voltage.) Yugo’s assertions about Rossi’s personality and his business are irrelevant. However evil he may be, he has no magic ability to change the performance of a commercial wattmeter, thermocouple, or an IR camera. So-called sleight of hand techniques can only fool human observers, not instruments. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:28:25 PM I do not know why I bother but I went to the trouble to post a message here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/06/15/psstt-want-an-e-cat-lenr-generator-for-free/ Mary Yugo and others here claim that Rossi may be using some trick to fool Levi et al. in their recently published paper, “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder.” Yugo has not specified what that trick might be. She admits she does not know. That makes her assertion unscientific. That is, one that cannot be tested or falsified. Nice post ... but I hear that only the Pig enjoys the mud-wrestling.
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Nice post ... but I hear that only the Pig enjoys the mud-wrestling. It is not addressed to Yugo. It is for the benefit of other readers. I guess there will be readers who do not realize an assertion must be falsifiable. Yugo herself does not realize this. I have pointed it out to her many times. It is like water off a duck's back. The message never gets through at all. It isn't that she disagrees or that she is putting on an act to fool other readers. She hasn't the slightest idea what this rule means, or how it applies. Several members of the 2004 DoE review panel made the same error, even though they are professional scientists. Member numbers 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14 to be exact. For example, #6 wrote: Exposing or disproving experimental artifacts is far more difficult than generating them. That is true, but until you expose an artifact, you have no valid reason to assert that it exists. - Jed
