Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
A visual demonstration would impress the masses. Use a real ecat and a dummy ecat with the same input power to inflate a balloon The real ecat will inflate the balloon faster. Harry On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed. Just heating a container of water - pool, spa, teapot I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you would maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks. The body (the bath and its container) would be losing heat into the surroundings. It amounts to more or less the same thing they are doing now, with a bigger body and more thermal mass, plus evaporation and other complicated stuff. I do not see an advantage. A spa or a pond is not a simple thing to model. You do not need to measure flow rates if the effect is significant. You don't need to measure it now. You have to depend on Drs. Stefan and Boltzmann being right. As for convection, you just gotta look up the numbers in an HVAC textbook. It avoids all the % steam questions, the emissivity numbers, the air flow, the cameras.. It does not avoid the steam question! On the contrary, with a body water you are right back to that problem, with evaporation. There are no serious questions about emissivity, air flow, or cameras. The emissivity can be set to 1 (worst case). The air flow comes out of an engineering textbook. We know the camera and emissivity are right because the thermocouple confirms them. All questions are addressed and all are closed. It is about the simplest measure of heat. The present method is the simplest. Using a body of hot water heated to terminal temperature would be more complicated. The present method is not the most accurate but I doubt that a large body of water would be more accurate. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:42 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would cost a couple hundred bucks maybe Obviously if this is true then the $20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would have been more than adequate. Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then it is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to discounting the report: I didn't see the claim, but I suspect some hyperbole was involved. But I would be skeptical of a $20,000 budget when a technology of this value was being validated, and you can buy tube furnaces off the shelf with water cooling in the range of 10k. Then the only thing that might be necessary for good calorimetry might be additional insulation.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:38 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: OK, I'll ask the question a different way: Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry? In the December run, the experiment was already running, so there was clearly no opportunity. They did not change very much for the March run, so the most likely explanation is that the option was not available, since it would clearly involve some modification to the ecat, but this is obviously speculation.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: They used perfectly normal calorimetry. Normal to me means common. But I have not seen calorimetry performed with IR thermometry. Do you have some references for where it has been used? There is not the slightest chance output is any less than 3 times input. The thing about that method is that it's indirect, and there is no natural way to integrate the output energy. That gives opportunities for deception. If you actually heat a large volume of water, the heat had to come from somewhere, so that's more unequivocal. And if that's done with a clearly isolated device, the evidence would be much stronger. Then, if you take it public, with unrestricted scrutiny, you've got a revolution. I do not think it would be good idea to put reactor in an enclosure where you cannot keep an eye on it. The previous one melted, so I think they should leave it in the open air. That's ridiculous. You keep an eye on it with thermocouples. And if you have a cooling system, you have far more opportunity to do something about it if it gets too hot. If they were to build something like an enclosure with flowing water tubes around the outside, the skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt those results. They would say that Rossi hid something in the box, or the flow rate is not correct, or the thermocouples are placed incorrectly, or this, or that, or an onion. Not if the water were collected to integrate the heat. And insulation is not heavy, so exceeding the entire device's weight in chemical fuel should be easy. But yes, open public scrutiny, or accessibility to the device by *any* qualified scientist would be necessary to allay all suspicions. It does not take much to set off the skeptics. Cude sees one extra wire with three-phase electricity and he calls that a rat's nest of wires. One wire! You're mixing objections up. The rat's nest of wires is possible with single-phase too. The reality is that it is a rat's nest from the pictures. The 3-phase involves more complicated measurement, and additional wiring. I don't know if there was a neutral or ground from the mains, but if there were, then it's more than one wire, and 3 times the measurements, and also more processing -- and for no advantage. No doubt he would call a flow calorimeter a rat's nest of cooling water pipes and way too many thermocouples. If you circulate the water from a 1000L tank, you wouldn't need anything more than a mercury thermometer to verify the heat produced. Thermocouples could be used to regulate things, but it would not affect the actual amount of heat needed to heat a volume of water. If you think that the ecat has a practical future, then surely an unequivocal demonstration should be possible.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Dennis, I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the experiment that you propose. It's amazing the excuses true believers contrive to explain why inferior experiments were used. If the thing is to be useful, it should at least be able to heat water. The recent tests were conducted in the open air and the thermal resistance that the ECAT works into has a very strong influence upon its operational parameters. But the thermal resistance is completely out of the experimenters control, and is affected by people walking by. Some kind of water cooling could be designed to remove heat at exactly the same rate, and would be easily controllable. How is that not preferable? If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat would be conducted away from the core. That depends on how it is coupled to the water. But it doesn't need to placed into a tank. You can just circulate cooling water through conduits inside an enclosure. These things are already available off the shelf, and for much higher temperatures. This loss of internal temperature likely would prevent the positive feedback from operating properly. I suspect that he went to a lot of trouble adjusting the parameters so that the experiment would be successful in the open air instead of the typical connection methods planned. But why? It has practically no use in that configuration. To exploit it, especially to make electricity, requires some kind of heat exchange, usually with a fluid. Many skeptics insist upon a simple experiment where the ECAT is naked and is easy to observe as protection against scams. He has made a great deal of effort to accommodate their wishes and they are still not satisfied. Do you honestly think that Cude and the others would not come up with some other excuses to claim that the test was not accurate if set up as you suggest? I am convinced that there is no possible way to convince them that his device is real. If you think skeptics can't be convinced, how do you think it can ever be made practical? A system that heats a volume of water would be pretty convincing. That would leave only the input side to worry about. A generator with finite fuel would be good, as long as open scrutiny were permitted, but using controlled cooling should make it possible to self-sustain, and then no input at all would be necessary. Heating enough water in a neutral location without any input and with open scrutiny would convince anyone. But this system is so far from adequate from a skeptical view, that it's a joke. The input is unnecessarily complex and measurements are inadequate, the output is indirectly measured, the blank run uses a different power regimen, the system should self-sustain, but doesn't, the reactor temperature (central cylinder) is not monitored, and above all, it's behind closed doors in Rossi's facilities supervised by hand-picked academics, most of which have been avowed supporters from the beginning. A month before this report, I indicated what I thought would be significant, and what wouldn't. None of the criteria I suggested were needed were met in this test. And it fits the description of a test I specifically said would fall short. It's in the first verbose post I wrote on the subject here. So, this does not represent a change of criteria. On the other hand, true believers were hoping for an independent test with a dozen researchers from 4 universities published under peer review. But they seem to have lowered their standards and are perfectly happy with this farce.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into which it operates. This is what should be expected. Exactly, and controlled cooling provides a way to adjust it. Sitting in the open air does not.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I have significant experience with flow calorimeters. I would say: 1. It would end up costing much more than a few hundred dollars. True. But not more than 10k for an off-the-shelf unit. That sounds like a bargain for what Rossi's doing. 2. It would take weeks of testing and futzing around to make it work. 3. It would clog up and it would leak. They always do. I would hate to work with something like this running constantly for months! Not if it's off-the-shelf. It would be designed to work for months,and would certainly be adequate for days, which is what these experiments were run for. 4. The skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt it, as they did with Rossi's other flow calorimeters (some of which I will grant were not good). Well, if he produced steam, then yes. Otherwise, a repeat of Levi's experiment was repeatedly requested, but never done. How hard would it be to measure the temperature in the water flow, and if you circulate water from a large tank, even better. You say skeptics can't be pleased, but the experiments specified for the steam cat were simply never done, so how can you know. And now he's abandoned that configuration and is doing something totally different, with its own problems. No test can answer all questions or lay to rest all doubts. Of course it can. At least any doubts about the existence of a new source of energy. An isolated thing that heats a lot of water would do it, under suitable scrutiny..
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still validate the claim of significant over unity energy output. It's not an order of magnitude, it's a factor of 3. That's the power gain. You can get an order of magnitude in claimed energy density with only a 10% gain in power if you wait long enough. So, the claimed energy density is kind of arbitrary, and relies on the credibility of the power measurement. Still, a factor of 3 is a lot, and if the measurements can be trusted, it's difficult to make an error that large. But it's an indirect method, and if there's suspicion of tampering or deception, it's better to use direct methods. Heating an actual volume of water, or even a flow of water, is harder to fake, as long as you avoid phase changes, and put the thermocouple probes in the water.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with. That's true for true believers. For everyone else the usual saying represents common sense, and the opinion of great thinkers from Pascal through Sagan. I see no reason to consider your view above theirs
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs. That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to melt, or explode, so it is not an option. That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that produced the electricity to begin with.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Flow calorimetry has much to be said for it but it is more complicated and less believable than this. A lot more can go wrong with it, and usually does go wrong with it for the first several weeks. It is both more believable, which is why it is actually used for calorimetry, while ir thermometry is not (normally), and has the important advantage that you can control and tailor the cooling.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you would maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks. The body (the bath and its container) would be losing heat into the surroundings. It amounts to more or less the same thing they are doing now, with a bigger body and more thermal mass, plus evaporation and other complicated stuff. I do not see an advantage. Heat loss is of course an obvious problem in heating a large tank of water. But if it were simply ignored, and the tank still heated up, it would strengthen the claim of excess heat, not weaken it. Moreover, a blank run could be used to verify the effect of the ecat. A modern hot tub at 37C loses about 100W to 200W in ambient temperature, if covered. That would increase as the temperature went up, but presumably losses could be significantly reduced with a better cover, and possibly more insulation. But with an ecat producing 1.5 kW like the December run, it should be possible to demonstrate excess heat pretty clearly. It does not avoid the steam question! On the contrary, with a body water you are right back to that problem, with evaporation. With a covered tank below the boiling point, evaporation can be ignored. The present method is the simplest. Using a body of hot water heated to terminal temperature would be more complicated. But far more direct and unequivocal. It has a visual way of integrating the heat that spot temperature measurement does not.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the loop. Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job. To close the loop with electricity, probably yes. But if you used controlled cooling, you could allow the ecat to rise to the temperature at which it self-sustains, and prevent runaway with the cooling. That would be the obvious way to do it.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:03 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: They only need to make their sponsors happy not Crude. I hope the best for them. Hey, if you're referring to me, I'm with you all the way on the self-sustaining water-tank heating demo. So the insult is particularly hurtful.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I do not understand what you have in mind here. Nature allows us to do some things and not others. We have to work with what nature allows, not what we would wish for in an ideal universe.[...] Obviously with more engineering RD a self-sustaining Rossi reactor could be made. How is that so obvious, after your song and dance about what nature allows. I think it's obvious now, that if it is triggered by heat, and it makes heat, it's a matter of controlling how much heat dissipates to make it self-sustaining. And he's claimed 100 hours of self-sustaining already. That's enough for a whiz-bang demo. It would not prove anything the present test does not prove. Mary Yugo would insist it is fake. Robert Park would ignore it. Why bother? Just use a different watt meter next time and all remaining questions vanish as surely as they would with a self-sustaining reactor. Well, that's not consistent with your previous statements about the need for an isolated self-sustaining device that remains palpably hotter than ambient as a demo that could not be refuted. I think that's right, but it just never appears, even though cold fusion is supposed to have an energy density a million times that of dynamite.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The best proof is one that has the least possibility of error. Or the least possibility of error that favors the ecat, or the least possibility of tampering. An isolated ecat eliminates input tampering. A heated tank of water eliminates output tampering. Heating an isolated tank of water of sufficient volume to sufficient temperature with an isolated device is pretty much iron-clad, as long as the isolation can be transparently verified. Every complication that is added to the setup results in many more issues to question by the skeptics. Not true if the complications allows disconnection from the mains, or allows manifest integration of the heat. The technique used by the testers of the ECAT is good enough for any reasonable scientist to accept Only if you define reasonable as true believer. You fail to realize that there is no way what so ever to meet their requirements since they do not believe LENR is possible. An isolated device heating an isolated tank of water in an isolated location would meet all the skeptics' requirements. Anyway, as I said, you can't possibly think it will ever be practical, if you think skeptics cannot be convinced. They have failed to prove their position entirely, Also the believers have failed to prove theirs...
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy without stopping would be pretty damn convincing. Nice to see you can envision a demo that would convince skeptics. Unfortunately the actual demos don't ever get better. They never approach this sort of level. There is always talk of self-sustaining, but it is never reached, in a public demo.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: There was a time when this field desperately needed a standalone self powered reactor to prove the reaction is real. That is because absolute power was low, ranging from 5 to 100 W. However, now that Rossi has developed high-powered reactors ranging from 500 to . . . 1 MW (I guess?) the need for standalone reactors is reduced. Nonsense, the absence is all the more suspicious. With a thermal-to-thermal COP of 2 or more, it should be a piece of cake to make it self-sustaining. That he hasn't most likely means the claims are bogus. The only way these results could be wrong would be if Rossi has somehow found a way to fool a watt meter. If he is capable of doing that he is also capable of making something that looks like a self-sustaining demonstration but is not. Disagree. The latter is not in the same league.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his tea. If you believe Rothwell and Roberson, skeptics will never have to concede, because no application of cold fusion is obvious enough to make them believe it. Therefore, there will be no crow, or tea, on the menu. Of course the premise is nonsense. But the last sentence is still almost certainly true.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If the device cannot self-power, it is still valuable with a lower COP, the proverbial hot water or space heater - A COP of 3 is not useful if the electricity was made with fossil fuels at an efficiency of 1/3. That's a wash.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If it is real it is the most important advance in technology since the discovery of fire. If the scientific community is convinced it is real, every industrial corporation and university will be hard at work on this. ~$100 million per day will devoted to it. Huh. That's what the skeptics say. I thought true believers thought that it was being suppressed because the mainstream hates cldan and abundant energy and challenges to the status quo. I'll hang on to that quote the next time conspiracy theories rear their ugly head.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: WHY are you so certain that wattmeters do not work?!? You know that's not the objection. There is no chance Rossi can fool one, and if the people doing the test have any doubt about that, they can bring a portable generator. Would that they had. To put it another way, if you do not trust the wattmeter, why would you trust the IR camera or thermocouple? If Rossi can fool a wattmeter he can fool any instrument. What would he fool with an isolated device? And he couldn't fool a mercury thermometer to measure the temperature of a tank of water, if it was brought by a skeptic to a neutral location.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Portable generator is also fine and even better, because it leaves very little room for tricks and doubt. But after 10 or so demonstrations we have had only one portable generator and that also was brought by Rossi. And it had the same output as the claimed ecat.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Nothing in the recent test was brought by Rossi. This test was a hands-off black box test, exactly what the skeptics have been demanding. It seems you will not take yes for an answer. So much nonsense. The test was running when they arrived in December, and the instruments were the same in March. In fact the ir camera, and the power meter were the same as used in the various experiments reported in 2012. Rossi's fingerprints are on every aspect of this test.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and he is as bad as Rossi. And he brought most of the instruments. I see. And these other co-authors are so stupid they do not even notice the equipment is not working? Probably. Essen was stupid enough to think a humidity probe could determine steam quality, or that visual inspection of steam was enough. Even though they calibrated the wattmeter with a resistor? Even though they stepped a blank cell through a calibration? Different power regimen. Doesn't count. So you are saying Levi wants to destroy his own reputation for no reason, for no possible benefit. There may be benefit, and he has retained plausible deniability, so the risk is small. Because there is not slightest chance he or Rossi will get away with this. Sooner or later someone will bring an instrument that reveals the scam. Much later is possible though. BLP has gone for 20 years+ with many claims and no product and no revealing of a scam. Also, how did Rossi and Levi manage to make modern integrated circuit instruments work wrong? Watch these videos if you didn't like the cheese video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD7DzTIFJdU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KMLmpC7-Ls http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1eMryiU1ro They're not about faking power, but show some amazing electronics fakes.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Jun 4, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and he is as bad as Rossi. So you are saying Levi wants to destroy his own reputation for no reason, for no possible benefit. There may be benefit, and he has retained plausible deniability, so the risk is small. That is true. The risk for Levi is negligible and he can always claim ignorance. Levi has very steady job at university and his pay roll is determined solely by his Ph.D level education and his work experience measured in years. If there are any deviations, Levi can just ask the Union lawyer to clear things up. His academic credentials are not based on how nice person he is but how peer review panels are rating his published articles: http://scholar.google.fi/citations?hl=enuser=vEZM3BQJview_op=list_workspagesize=100 So If Levi is making few dozens of kiloeuros extra money with Rossi with very little efforts, his involvement is more than justified. If I were in Levi's shoes, I would without any doubt help Rossi as much I dare. After all this is not an academic scam, because academic world does not take commercial level cold fusion anyway seriously! ―Jouni
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: That is true. The risk for Levi is negligible and he can always claim ignorance. The risk is that his reputation would be shattered. He would be forced to retire at least. So If Levi is making few dozens of kiloeuros extra money with Rossi with very little efforts. . . Do you seriously believe that a professor at a national university would destroy his own reputation and lose his job and all of his friends and professional associations in exchange for a few thousand euro?!? Can you point an example of a professor who has done that. Again I say: your speculation is far removed from reality. People do not act this way. They do not ruin their lives for trivial sums of money. These accusations of fraud have circulated for years. I ask you: Where is the evidence? Where are the victims? Where are the indictments? Rossi has shipped equipment and put on many demonstrations, some in public, others in private. Why has no one other than Krivit come forward with claims that Rossi cheated? There is not a shred of evidence for this hypothesis. It is based on Rossi's flamboyant personality and his legal troubles in the past, which is to say it is based on nothing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Cude, You always over simplify the system. If these types of devices were easy to control and to work with, everyone could do it. How much time do you think Rossi should devote to trying to prove this to skeptics with your opinion? I think he should concentrate his efforts upon those that really want to know the truth instead of folks that just debunk for pleasure. He would be wasting valuable time dealing with your concerns. You will eventually accept the truth but only after about half of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:00 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Dennis, I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the experiment that you propose. It's amazing the excuses true believers contrive to explain why inferior experiments were used. If the thing is to be useful, it should at least be able to heat water. The recent tests were conducted in the open air and the thermal resistance that the ECAT works into has a very strong influence upon its operational parameters. But the thermal resistance is completely out of the experimenters control, and is affected by people walking by. Some kind of water cooling could be designed to remove heat at exactly the same rate, and would be easily controllable. How is that not preferable? If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat would be conducted away from the core. That depends on how it is coupled to the water. But it doesn't need to placed into a tank. You can just circulate cooling water through conduits inside an enclosure. These things are already available off the shelf, and for much higher temperatures. This loss of internal temperature likely would prevent the positive feedback from operating properly. I suspect that he went to a lot of trouble adjusting the parameters so that the experiment would be successful in the open air instead of the typical connection methods planned. But why? It has practically no use in that configuration. To exploit it, especially to make electricity, requires some kind of heat exchange, usually with a fluid. Many skeptics insist upon a simple experiment where the ECAT is naked and is easy to observe as protection against scams. He has made a great deal of effort to accommodate their wishes and they are still not satisfied. Do you honestly think that Cude and the others would not come up with some other excuses to claim that the test was not accurate if set up as you suggest? I am convinced that there is no possible way to convince them that his device is real. If you think skeptics can't be convinced, how do you think it can ever be made practical? A system that heats a volume of water would be pretty convincing. That would leave only the input side to worry about. A generator with finite fuel would be good, as long as open scrutiny were permitted, but using controlled cooling should make it possible to self-sustain, and then no input at all would be necessary. Heating enough water in a neutral location without any input and with open scrutiny would convince anyone. But this system is so far from adequate from a skeptical view, that it's a joke. The input is unnecessarily complex and measurements are inadequate, the output is indirectly measured, the blank run uses a different power regimen, the system should self-sustain, but doesn't, the reactor temperature (central cylinder) is not monitored, and above all, it's behind closed doors in Rossi's facilities supervised by hand-picked academics, most of which have been avowed supporters from the beginning. A month before this report, I indicated what I thought would be significant, and what wouldn't. None of the criteria I suggested were needed were met in this test. And it fits the description of a test I specifically said would fall short. It's in the first verbose post I wrote on the subject here. So, this does not represent a change of criteria. On the other hand, true believers were hoping for an independent test with a dozen researchers from 4 universities published under peer review. But they seem to have lowered their standards and are perfectly happy with this farce.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Nope, each takes a lot of engineering effort to achieve. When did you become an expert on the design of ECATs? You don't even believe they work in the first place, how can you offer solutions to the problems? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:01 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into which it operates. This is what should be expected. Exactly, and controlled cooling provides a way to adjust it. Sitting in the open air does not.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Try to be serious Cude. You know that you would find fault with any test system regardless of its performance. Your record speaks for itself. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:02 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I have significant experience with flow calorimeters. I would say: 1. It would end up costing much more than a few hundred dollars. True. But not more than 10k for an off-the-shelf unit. That sounds like a bargain for what Rossi's doing. 2. It would take weeks of testing and futzing around to make it work. 3. It would clog up and it would leak. They always do. I would hate to work with something like this running constantly for months! Not if it's off-the-shelf. It would be designed to work for months,and would certainly be adequate for days, which is what these experiments were run for. 4. The skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt it, as they did with Rossi's other flow calorimeters (some of which I will grant were not good). Well, if he produced steam, then yes. Otherwise, a repeat of Levi's experiment was repeatedly requested, but never done. How hard would it be to measure the temperature in the water flow, and if you circulate water from a large tank, even better. You say skeptics can't be pleased, but the experiments specified for the steam cat were simply never done, so how can you know. And now he's abandoned that configuration and is doing something totally different, with its own problems. No test can answer all questions or lay to rest all doubts. Of course it can. At least any doubts about the existence of a new source of energy. An isolated thing that heats a lot of water would do it, under suitable scrutiny..
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Cude, I was of the understanding that you have accepted the accuracy of the thermal imaging output power measurement. Are you now returning to that lost cause? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:03 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still validate the claim of significant over unity energy output. It's not an order of magnitude, it's a factor of 3. That's the power gain. You can get an order of magnitude in claimed energy density with only a 10% gain in power if you wait long enough. So, the claimed energy density is kind of arbitrary, and relies on the credibility of the power measurement. Still, a factor of 3 is a lot, and if the measurements can be trusted, it's difficult to make an error that large. But it's an indirect method, and if there's suspicion of tampering or deception, it's better to use direct methods. Heating an actual volume of water, or even a flow of water, is harder to fake, as long as you avoid phase changes, and put the thermocouple probes in the water.
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Wrong. The ECat at low gain would be valuable to the segment of the population whose only affordable alternative is a resistance space heater COP=1 versus LENR heater COP=3. Next is the home electric water heater. For them, net power for heat is cut by two thirds. DoE says space heating and water heating are the largest consumer of energy in U.S. residences, accounting for approximately 15% of total electricity usage. Savings from this market alone in the USA is a minimum $15 billion annual - from a COP=3 device - if it is safe enough for home use. The low gain is valuable to the those with daytime solar power, needing to maximize house heating from a limited amount of electricity, or at night from electricity stored by batteries. . so little imagination, so much debilitating stubbornness. From: Joshua Cude A COP of 3 is not useful if the electricity was made with fossil fuels at an efficiency of 1/3. That's a wash.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Do you promise to accept the results if he uses one of these calorimeters? Why do I think not? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:07 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Flow calorimetry has much to be said for it but it is more complicated and less believable than this. A lot more can go wrong with it, and usually does go wrong with it for the first several weeks. It is both more believable, which is why it is actually used for calorimetry, while ir thermometry is not (normally), and has the important advantage that you can control and tailor the cooling.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Wrong again Cude. No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without connection to the power mains. Read what Rossi has written. His definition of SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly cooling off but generating internal heat. Controlled cooling has not been proven to work yet and may not work with the present design. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:06 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs. That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to melt, or explode, so it is not an option. That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that produced the electricity to begin with.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote, regarding a COP of 3: Wrong. The ECat at low gain would be valuable to the segment of the population whose only affordable alternative is a resistance space heater COP=1 versus LENR heater COP=3. There are not many people like that in the first world. Most of them are in the U.S. Pacific Northwest where the electricity comes from hydro or wind power, so production does not take 3 units of thermal power per 1 unit of electricity. That is what I recall from the EIA. Next is the home electric water heater. For them, net power for heat is cut by two thirds. Right. DoE says space heating and water heating are the largest consumer of energy in U.S. residences, accounting for approximately 15% of total electricity usage. Right again. Electric water heating is more common that resistance electric space heating. However, as I said there is no reason to think Rossi or anyone else is limited to a COP of 3. In the most recent tests, the first COP was 6 and the second was 3 but that was very conservative. Probably it was closer to 4. No matter how difficult it is to control the thing at higher COPs, methods will be found, and then perfected. People are able to control extremely dangerous reactions, such as igniting small amounts of gasoline without causing the entire vehicle to explode. This is done all over the world in billions of automobiles every day. Automobiles seldom burn. When they were first developed Otto cycle engines and diesel engines burned and exploded often. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
I wrote: No matter how difficult it is to control the thing at higher COPs, methods will be found, and then perfected. This control problem only seems to be an issue with the high temperature Hot Cat model. At moderate temperatures Rossi ran for long periods with less input power, and a much better COP. Therefore, if we're talking about space heating or hot water heaters, where the temperature reaches about 80°C at most, he has already demonstrated commercially useful COP's. These devices would reduce electric power consumption by a large margin, and eliminate the use of natural gas for everything but cooking. As noted this is a large fraction of all energy use. See chapter 15 of my book. Applications that must have the Hot Cat higher temperatures include things such as electric power generation, transportation, manufacturing, cooking, and some process heat. Process heat used for curing wood and other applications could be done with a low temperature Rossi reactors. We think of energy as necessarily being high temperature high grade heat, such as combustion heat. Actually a large fraction of useful heat is at low temperatures. It just happens that most of our technology produces high-grade heat. This is often an impedance mismatch. It would be better if we could make heat at 50°C rather than thousands of degrees which then have to be cooled down, from a gas flame to space heating. This is crying shame from the point of view of thermodynamics. Heat pumps are a far better use of such high grade energy. A gas flame powered heat pump heating coil would be a better use of natural gas, but it would be difficult to engineer. As I remarked in the last pages of my book, the ultimate impedance mismatch would be a Tokamak reactor which produces temperatures of 400,000,000°C, and might end up being used for resistance electric power heating in houses. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Again, how confident are you that controlled cooling will perform this function? I have serious doubts that it is easy and you have serious doubts that it is possible at all. Please tell us how sure you are that this will work? Do you now believe that the ECAT is real? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:09 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the loop. Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job. To close the loop with electricity, probably yes. But if you used controlled cooling, you could allow the ecat to rise to the temperature at which it self-sustains, and prevent runaway with the cooling. That would be the obvious way to do it.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Cude, you are consistent at least. You are like a Mary Yugo on steroids. Both of you repeat your statements over and over and they have no substance. I just proved your DC cheat trick inert and the others you insist upon depend upon Rossi running a scam so you have nothing but straws. I only believe what I have seen adequately demonstrated. You would not believe anything you see period. That is the difference between us. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:13 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The best proof is one that has the least possibility of error. Or the least possibility of error that favors the ecat, or the least possibility of tampering. An isolated ecat eliminates input tampering. A heated tank of water eliminates output tampering. Heating an isolated tank of water of sufficient volume to sufficient temperature with an isolated device is pretty much iron-clad, as long as the isolation can be transparently verified. Every complication that is added to the setup results in many more issues to question by the skeptics. Not true if the complications allows disconnection from the mains, or allows manifest integration of the heat. The technique used by the testers of the ECAT is good enough for any reasonable scientist to accept Only if you define reasonable as true believer. You fail to realize that there is no way what so ever to meet their requirements since they do not believe LENR is possible. An isolated device heating an isolated tank of water in an isolated location would meet all the skeptics' requirements. Anyway, as I said, you can't possibly think it will ever be practical, if you think skeptics cannot be convinced. They have failed to prove their position entirely, Also the believers have failed to prove theirs...
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
How much of an impact will it have upon you (Cude) to hear that an ECAT self distructed because the input control was removed? Hum, seems like that has been stated. Get real, admit that there is no level of performance that would convince you except for the next one you dig up. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: There was a time when this field desperately needed a standalone self powered reactor to prove the reaction is real. That is because absolute power was low, ranging from 5 to 100 W. However, now that Rossi has developed high-powered reactors ranging from 500 to . . . 1 MW (I guess?) the need for standalone reactors is reduced. Nonsense, the absence is all the more suspicious. With a thermal-to-thermal COP of 2 or more, it should be a piece of cake to make it self-sustaining. That he hasn't most likely means the claims are bogus. The only way these results could be wrong would be if Rossi has somehow found a way to fool a watt meter. If he is capable of doing that he is also capable of making something that looks like a self-sustaining demonstration but is not. Disagree. The latter is not in the same league.
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical input you must have a high COP. The conversion from heat back into electrical power places restrictions on you ability to make it self sustaining. IF you can get heat out at around 300C you theoretically could self sustain at somewhere just over 2:1 but that would require closely matching the conversion device and the rate of heat extraction. When you down in the sub 100C range (where I always seem to end up) for extraction, then you have to be at over 5:1 if you are perfect and more like 10 to 1 for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such. Also, you have to have a way to balance heat extraction rates with keeping the unit above its desired working temperature. You just about have to have a variable heat conductive path of some kind. [ a few here might be interested- I am presently trying to make a variable heat path device using a concentric tube around a heat pipe with a ferro fluid between- but then I am a much lower COP ] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:46:26 -0400 Wrong again Cude. No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without connection to the power mains. Read what Rossi has written. His definition of SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly cooling off but generating internal heat. Controlled cooling has not been proven to work yet and may not work with the present design. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:06 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs. That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to melt, or explode, so it is not an option. That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that produced the electricity to begin with.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
You know that we are just being truthful Cude. The evidence is overwhelming at this point but you do not see it. And I have tried to educate you about how heat controls the ECAT and you fail to understand. Frankly, I do not know what else can be done except to have you burn yourself sitting upon one of the ECATs that has its control system turned off. Even then, you would swear that someone had hidden gasoline inside it prior to your sitting. You are a broken record. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:16 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his tea. If you believe Rothwell and Roberson, skeptics will never have to concede, because no application of cold fusion is obvious enough to make them believe it. Therefore, there will be no crow, or tea, on the menu. Of course the premise is nonsense. But the last sentence is still almost certainly true.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
So why would you want to buy three tons of coal to generate electricity if only one ton were needed? Rossi has pointed out on several occasions that his device will operate with gas heating. Would you prefer to put out that extra carbon dioxide and pay the extra cost for the coal if you had an ECAT that tripled your energy supply? I prefer the many options that open when the COP is 6, but that does not mean that a COP of 3 is not important. You should know better than to make these kinds of statements. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If the device cannotself-power, it is still valuable with a lower COP, the proverbial hot water orspace heater - A COP of 3 is not useful if the electricity was made with fossil fuels at an efficiency of 1/3. That's a wash.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical input you must have a high COP. Where did that graph come from? Did you make it? I have never heard of mechanical work from temperatures below 100 deg C. By the way, I wrote: These [low temperature] devices would reduce electric power consumption by a large margin, and eliminate the use of natural gas for everything but cooking. I meant in household (domestic) applications. These would have to be driven with mains electricity. Or perhaps with a Hot Cat power generator. Energy applications are often divided into domestic, commercial, industrial and transportation sectors. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
That is right Josh, keep raising the bar. There has been sufficient proof shown so far and you and your friends have not accepted it. Why should Rossi think that any additional level of proof would be anything but a waste of his time? He is smarter than you realize. I can hardly wait for the day when you fade away into the woodwork claiming that you were favoring the ECAT all along. Your position is well established at this point. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:21 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: WHY are you so certain that wattmeters do not work?!? You know that's not the objection. There is no chance Rossi can fool one, and if the people doing the test have any doubt about that, they can bring a portable generator. Would that they had. To put it another way, if you do not trust the wattmeter, why would you trust the IR camera or thermocouple? If Rossi can fool a wattmeter he can fool any instrument. What would he fool with an isolated device? And he couldn't fool a mercury thermometer to measure the temperature of a tank of water, if it was brought by a skeptic to a neutral location.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Why don't you review the actual peak input drive levels required Josh? Once you understand how it operates your statement will become non sense even to you. Some form of energy storage will be required as has been said several times. Please try to understand the system. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:22 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Portable generator is also fine and even better, because it leaves very little room for tricks and doubt. But after 10 or so demonstrations we have had only one portable generator and that also was brought by Rossi. And it had the same output as the claimed ecat.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Cude, I hope that one day you will be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as you love to throw at everyone else. To claim that these men are all scamming is contemptuous. To deny that all the previous replications by various labs is fake or due to ignorance is beyond belief. We would be better served if you returned to your 'moletrap' where you are the king. They bow to you like their God. I suspect that you are here in spades because one of them went crying to you about me proving him wrong. It does not go past my review that you have failed to take me up on the offer of a spice replication attempt. I suspect that spice models are far beyond your area of knowledge, and any EE subjects that you speak to should be disregarded. Josh, you could put your talents to good use instead of wasting them like this. How unfortunate it is that you have a hobby of debunking cold fusion instead of trying to enhance the effort. I have not totally given up on you yet and perhaps one day you will see the light. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:26 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and he is as bad as Rossi. And he brought most of the instruments. I see. And these other co-authors are so stupid they do not even notice the equipment is not working? Probably. Essen was stupid enough to think a humidity probe could determine steam quality, or that visual inspection of steam was enough. Even though they calibrated the wattmeter with a resistor? Even though they stepped a blank cell through a calibration? Different power regimen. Doesn't count. So you are saying Levi wants to destroy his own reputation for no reason, for no possible benefit. There may be benefit, and he has retained plausible deniability, so the risk is small. Because there is not slightest chance he or Rossi will get away with this. Sooner or later someone will bring an instrument that reveals the scam. Much later is possible though. BLP has gone for 20 years+ with many claims and no product and no revealing of a scam. Also, how did Rossi and Levi manage to make modern integrated circuit instruments work wrong? Watch these videos if you didn't like the cheese video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD7DzTIFJdU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KMLmpC7-Ls http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1eMryiU1ro They're not about faking power, but show some amazing electronics fakes.
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
I just ripped it off the net. It is just the limiting Carnott efficiency 1-t/T like. Yes there are small Stirlings that can convert down in the sub 100C range fairly efficiently, but with them you would have to go heatmechanical electrical control you cell. Peltiers give you direct heat electrical but you are lucky to get 5% in the real world on those and that would mean a COP of 20 for a self sustaining thing. You also can get heat mechanical via things like NITINOL wire systems and Minto wheels at fairly low temps. [my target for NI is 2 to 3:1 but not self sustaining, I doubt it will be convincing to outsiders- just a start. I do have one sample though that I might can get self heating enough to do mechanical work with a toy Stirling. But, as usual, not at levels to be free from fraud attacks] Jed- do you know who/what is the demo listed for ICCF Monday evening? D2 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:51:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical input you must have a high COP. Where did that graph come from? Did you make it? I have never heard of mechanical work from temperatures below 100 deg C. By the way, I wrote: These [low temperature] devices would reduce electric power consumption by a large margin, and eliminate the use of natural gas for everything but cooking. I meant in household (domestic) applications. These would have to be driven with mains electricity. Or perhaps with a Hot Cat power generator. Energy applications are often divided into domestic, commercial, industrial and transportation sectors. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Dennis, please look at the many descriptions that have been written about why the COP must be beyond a certain level to supply itself without having problems. A COP of 2 to 1 could not make enough electricity to supply the drive by any means. Electronic control required electrical energy and that must be available for stable operation of the device. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:58 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical input you must have a high COP. The conversion from heat back into electrical power places restrictions on you ability to make it self sustaining. IF you can get heat out at around 300C you theoretically could self sustain at somewhere just over 2:1 but that would require closely matching the conversion device and the rate of heat extraction. When you down in the sub 100C range (where I always seem to end up) for extraction, then you have to be at over 5:1 if you are perfect and more like 10 to 1 for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such. Also, you have to have a way to balance heat extraction rates with keeping the unit above its desired working temperature. You just about have to have a variable heat conductive path of some kind. [ a few here might be interested- I am presently trying to make a variable heat path device using a concentric tube around a heat pipe with a ferro fluid between- but then I am a much lower COP ] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:46:26 -0400 Wrong again Cude. No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without connection to the power mains. Read what Rossi has written. His definition of SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly cooling off but generating internal heat. Controlled cooling has not been proven to work yet and may not work with the present design. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:06 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs. That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to melt, or explode, so it is not an option. That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that produced the electricity to begin with.
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
that is why I said: if your process requires electrical input you must have a high COP. for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such. You may want to re read my post. But also realize that Ecats are just one of many paths in the area of CF. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:17:10 -0400 Dennis, please look at the many descriptions that have been written about why the COP must be beyond a certain level to supply itself without having problems. A COP of 2 to 1 could not make enough electricity to supply the drive by any means. Electronic control required electrical energy and that must be available for stable operation of the device. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:58 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical input you must have a high COP. The conversion from heat back into electrical power places restrictions on you ability to make it self sustaining. IF you can get heat out at around 300C you theoretically could self sustain at somewhere just over 2:1 but that would require closely matching the conversion device and the rate of heat extraction. When you down in the sub 100C range (where I always seem to end up) for extraction, then you have to be at over 5:1 if you are perfect and more like 10 to 1 for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such. Also, you have to have a way to balance heat extraction rates with keeping the unit above its desired working temperature. You just about have to have a variable heat conductive path of some kind. [ a few here might be interested- I am presently trying to make a variable heat path device using a concentric tube around a heat pipe with a ferro fluid between- but then I am a much lower COP ] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:46:26 -0400 Wrong again Cude. No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without connection to the power mains. Read what Rossi has written. His definition of SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly cooling off but generating internal heat. Controlled cooling has not been proven to work yet and may not work with the present design. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:06 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs. That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to melt, or explode, so it is not an option. That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that produced the electricity to begin with.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
OK, I guess it was not clear to me what you were pointing out. It had the sound of sarcasm...my bad. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 12:33 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... that is why I said: if your process requires electrical input you must have a high COP. for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such. You may want to re read my post. But also realize that Ecats are just one of many paths in the area of CF. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:17:10 -0400 Dennis, please look at the many descriptions that have been written about why the COP must be beyond a certain level to supply itself without having problems. A COP of 2 to 1 could not make enough electricity to supply the drive by any means. Electronic control required electrical energy and that must be available for stable operation of the device. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:58 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical input you must have a high COP. The conversion from heat back into electrical power places restrictions on you ability to make it self sustaining. IF you can get heat out at around 300C you theoretically could self sustain at somewhere just over 2:1 but that would require closely matching the conversion device and the rate of heat extraction. When you down in the sub 100C range (where I always seem to end up) for extraction, then you have to be at over 5:1 if you are perfect and more like 10 to 1 for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such. Also, you have to have a way to balance heat extraction rates with keeping the unit above its desired working temperature. You just about have to have a variable heat conductive path of some kind. [ a few here might be interested- I am presently trying to make a variable heat path device using a concentric tube around a heat pipe with a ferro fluid between- but then I am a much lower COP ] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:46:26 -0400 Wrong again Cude. No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without connection to the power mains. Read what Rossi has written. His definition of SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly cooling off but generating internal heat. Controlled cooling has not been proven to work yet and may not work with the present design. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:06 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs. That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to melt, or explode, so it is not an option. That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that produced the electricity to begin with.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Peltiers give you direct heat electrical but you are lucky to get 5% in the real world on those and that would mean a COP of 20 for a self sustaining thing. I believe that is 5% with high heat, such as the exhaust pipe of a truck. Jed- do you know who/what is the demo listed for ICCF Monday evening? No idea! I have been asking everyone I know to put on a demo. I have also been asking Levi et al. to come. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Sarcasm has no place in science. To me it is just telling a lie and laughing about it. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:02:11 -0400 OK, I guess it was not clear to me what you were pointing out. It had the sound of sarcasm...my bad. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 12:33 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... that is why I said: if your process requires electrical input you must have a high COP. for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such. You may want to re read my post. But also realize that Ecats are just one of many paths in the area of CF. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:17:10 -0400 Dennis, please look at the many descriptions that have been written about why the COP must be beyond a certain level to supply itself without having problems. A COP of 2 to 1 could not make enough electricity to supply the drive by any means. Electronic control required electrical energy and that must be available for stable operation of the device. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:58 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical input you must have a high COP. The conversion from heat back into electrical power places restrictions on you ability to make it self sustaining. IF you can get heat out at around 300C you theoretically could self sustain at somewhere just over 2:1 but that would require closely matching the conversion device and the rate of heat extraction. When you down in the sub 100C range (where I always seem to end up) for extraction, then you have to be at over 5:1 if you are perfect and more like 10 to 1 for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such. Also, you have to have a way to balance heat extraction rates with keeping the unit above its desired working temperature. You just about have to have a variable heat conductive path of some kind. [ a few here might be interested- I am presently trying to make a variable heat path device using a concentric tube around a heat pipe with a ferro fluid between- but then I am a much lower COP ] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:46:26 -0400 Wrong again Cude. No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without connection to the power mains. Read what Rossi has written. His definition of SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly cooling off but generating internal heat. Controlled cooling has not been proven to work yet and may not work with the present design. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:06 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs. That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to melt, or explode, so it is not an option. That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that produced the electricity to begin with.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I have never heard of mechanical work from temperatures below 100 deg C. I recall reading on this list at one point that a Stirling engine could do something along these lines. There is this post, which says something similar [1], and this little blurb as well [2]. Eric [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg25105.html [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_the_Stirling_engine#Low_temperature_difference_engines
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
If the device was in the 1 to 5 kW range, then a simple hot tub should work. A typical 6 foot spa heats at about 1 degree F per hour at 1 kW. That, some copper tubing coils, and a utility pole meter should be enough. If you really wanted to be sure no extra wiring/power was going into it, perhaps a 1kW gas generator. I personally think heating two hot tubs side by side - one with a ecat and one with a R would be a fair demo and a fairly good proof. For smaller units (1 to 100W), perhaps heating a tea pot would be reasonable. So yes, I think it could be done on the cheap. However, realize Rossi's purpose is not to prove the science. I don't think he is things in the best way, but the science should be done in controlled science labs- The development in a warehouse perhaps heating a pool. People who want proof and science should do their own experiments. Anything else will not be adequate for those purposes. D2 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:42:07 -0500 From: jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would cost a couple hundred bucks maybe Obviously if this is true then the $20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would have been more than adequate. Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then it is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to discounting the report: Why bother issuing such a report unless you were trying to mind-f*ck everyone? Of course, I can come up with any of a variety of plausible explanations for why this couple hundred bucks estimate may be way off but then I haven't actually conducted calorimetry on CF runs. So the question is Did this skeptic get emotional because his estimate is correct or did he come up with his estimate because he was an emotional pseudo-skeptic?
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
I don't think a couple hundred bucks would cover the spa-based system you describe. On the cheap is relative. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:29 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: If the device was in the 1 to 5 kW range, then a simple hot tub should work. A typical 6 foot spa heats at about 1 degree F per hour at 1 kW. That, some copper tubing coils, and a utility pole meter should be enough. If you really wanted to be sure no extra wiring/power was going into it, perhaps a 1kW gas generator. I personally think heating two hot tubs side by side - one with a ecat and one with a R would be a fair demo and a fairly good proof. For smaller units (1 to 100W), perhaps heating a tea pot would be reasonable. So yes, I think it could be done on the cheap. However, realize Rossi's purpose is not to prove the science. I don't think he is things in the best way, but the science should be done in controlled science labs- The development in a warehouse perhaps heating a pool. People who want proof and science should do their own experiments. Anything else will not be adequate for those purposes. D2 -- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:42:07 -0500 From: jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would cost a couple hundred bucks maybe Obviously if this is true then the $20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would have been more than adequate. Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then it is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to discounting the report: Why bother issuing such a report unless you were trying to mind-f*ck everyone? Of course, I can come up with any of a variety of *plausible*explanations for why this couple hundred bucks estimate may be way off but then I haven't actually conducted calorimetry on CF runs. So the question is Did this skeptic get emotional because his estimate is correct or did he come up with his estimate because he was an emotional pseudo-skeptic?
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
OK, I'll ask the question a different way: Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry? On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think a couple hundred bucks would cover the spa-based system you describe. On the cheap is relative. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:29 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: If the device was in the 1 to 5 kW range, then a simple hot tub should work. A typical 6 foot spa heats at about 1 degree F per hour at 1 kW. That, some copper tubing coils, and a utility pole meter should be enough. If you really wanted to be sure no extra wiring/power was going into it, perhaps a 1kW gas generator. I personally think heating two hot tubs side by side - one with a ecat and one with a R would be a fair demo and a fairly good proof. For smaller units (1 to 100W), perhaps heating a tea pot would be reasonable. So yes, I think it could be done on the cheap. However, realize Rossi's purpose is not to prove the science. I don't think he is things in the best way, but the science should be done in controlled science labs- The development in a warehouse perhaps heating a pool. People who want proof and science should do their own experiments. Anything else will not be adequate for those purposes. D2 -- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:42:07 -0500 From: jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would cost a couple hundred bucks maybe Obviously if this is true then the $20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would have been more than adequate. Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then it is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to discounting the report: Why bother issuing such a report unless you were trying to mind-f*ck everyone? Of course, I can come up with any of a variety of *plausible*explanations for why this couple hundred bucks estimate may be way off but then I haven't actually conducted calorimetry on CF runs. So the question is Did this skeptic get emotional because his estimate is correct or did he come up with his estimate because he was an emotional pseudo-skeptic?
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry? They used perfectly normal calorimetry. There is not the slightest chance output is any less than 3 times input. There is nothing for them to explain. I do not think it would be good idea to put reactor in an enclosure where you cannot keep an eye on it. The previous one melted, so I think they should leave it in the open air. If they were to build something like an enclosure with flowing water tubes around the outside, the skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt those results. They would say that Rossi hid something in the box, or the flow rate is not correct, or the thermocouples are placed incorrectly, or this, or that, or an onion. It does not take much to set off the skeptics. Cude sees one extra wire with three-phase electricity and he calls that a rat's nest of wires. One wire! No doubt he would call a flow calorimeter a rat's nest of cooling water pipes and way too many thermocouples. There is no advantage to flow calorimetry if all you want is clear proof of excess heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Dennis, I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the experiment that you propose. The recent tests were conducted in the open air and the thermal resistance that the ECAT works into has a very strong influence upon its operational parameters. If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat would be conducted away from the core. This loss of internal temperature likely would prevent the positive feedback from operating properly. I suspect that he went to a lot of trouble adjusting the parameters so that the experiment would be successful in the open air instead of the typical connection methods planned. Many skeptics insist upon a simple experiment where the ECAT is naked and is easy to observe as protection against scams. He has made a great deal of effort to accommodate their wishes and they are still not satisfied. Do you honestly think that Cude and the others would not come up with some other excuses to claim that the test was not accurate if set up as you suggest? I am convinced that there is no possible way to convince them that his device is real. This should be evident to anyone following the recent non sense that has been posted by the pseudo skeptics. Why would anyone expect for their behavior to change since they are 100% convinced that LENR is bunk. In their world, some form of scam must be taking place and they are the heroes that will save us from the bad guys. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 1:29 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... If the device was in the 1 to 5 kW range, then a simple hot tub should work. A typical 6 foot spa heats at about 1 degree F per hour at 1 kW. That, some copper tubing coils, and a utility pole meter should be enough. If you really wanted to be sure no extra wiring/power was going into it, perhaps a 1kW gas generator. I personally think heating two hot tubs side by side - one with a ecat and one with a R would be a fair demo and a fairly good proof. For smaller units (1 to 100W), perhaps heating a tea pot would be reasonable. So yes, I think it could be done on the cheap. However, realize Rossi's purpose is not to prove the science. I don't think he is things in the best way, but the science should be done in controlled science labs- The development in a warehouse perhaps heating a pool. People who want proof and science should do their own experiments. Anything else will not be adequate for those purposes. D2 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:42:07 -0500 From: jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would cost a couple hundred bucks maybe Obviously if this is true then the $20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would have been more than adequate. Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then it is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to discounting the report: Why bother issuing such a report unless you were trying to mind-f*ck everyone? Of course, I can come up with any of a variety of plausible explanations for why this couple hundred bucks estimate may be way off but then I haven't actually conducted calorimetry on CF runs. So the question is Did this skeptic get emotional because his estimate is correct or did he come up with his estimate because he was an emotional pseudo-skeptic?
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry? They used perfectly normal calorimetry. There is not the slightest chance output is any less than 3 times input. There is nothing for them to explain. That may be the case and if so one would not expect to see an explanation in the paper itself. On the other hand, given the controversial environment they might reasonably be expected to say something like the following, at least in an interview if not in the paper itself: I do not think it would be good idea to put reactor in an enclosure where you cannot keep an eye on it. The previous one melted, so I think they should leave it in the open air. If they were to build something like an enclosure with flowing water tubes around the outside, the skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt those results. They would say that Rossi hid something in the box, or the flow rate is not correct, or the thermocouples are placed incorrectly, or this, or that, or an onion. It does not take much to set off the skeptics. Cude sees one extra wire with three-phase electricity and he calls that a rat's nest of wires. One wire! No doubt he would call a flow calorimeter a rat's nest of cooling water pipes and way too many thermocouples. There is no advantage to flow calorimetry if all you want is clear proof of excess heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat would be conducted away from the core. I think the plan by Brian Ahern is to put the device in an air filled box with a copper pipe wound around the outside or the inside wall, and water flowing through the copper pipe. This would be a large flow calorimeter. I do not think it would be very accurate. I doubt it would be any better than the present calorimetry. There is a photo of a similar calorimeter at Defkalion. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
I would think that most of the $20K went to airfare, hotels and meals. you can't expect the scientists to work for free. -Mark From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:42 AM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would cost a couple hundred bucks maybe Obviously if this is true then the $20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would have been more than adequate. Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then it is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to discounting the report: Why bother issuing such a report unless you were trying to mind-f*ck everyone? Of course, I can come up with any of a variety of plausible explanations for why this couple hundred bucks estimate may be way off but then I haven't actually conducted calorimetry on CF runs. So the question is Did this skeptic get emotional because his estimate is correct or did he come up with his estimate because he was an emotional pseudo-skeptic?
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There is nothing for them to explain. That may be the case and if so one would not expect to see an explanation in the paper itself. On the other hand, given the controversial environment they might reasonably be expected to say something like the following, at least in an interview if not in the paper itself . . . You cannot expect them to say everything in the paper. If they were to stop and conduct interviews for every objection raised by skeptics they would be interviewing 12 hours a day, and they would get nothing else done. They should only address rational objections, whether these objections are raised by skeptics or supporters. The skeptics do not deserve extra attention or mollycoddling. Most of their ideas have no merit and are not worth a response, such as the notion that 3-phase electricity is difficult to measure. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
I see what you are referring to. If the ECAT is allowed to operate in air of roughly the same local temperature, then it should behave the same. I understood that Dennis was suggesting a configuration with much tighter coupling to the coolant. The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into which it operates. This is what should be expected. My personal opinion is that Rossi used the best approach possible to eliminate the most questions and they still complained. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 2:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat would be conducted away from the core. I think the plan by Brian Ahern is to put the device in an air filled box with a copper pipe wound around the outside or the inside wall, and water flowing through the copper pipe. This would be a large flow calorimeter. I do not think it would be very accurate. I doubt it would be any better than the present calorimetry. There is a photo of a similar calorimeter at Defkalion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Do the arithmetic, Mark. Although it is true that a couple hundred bucks is only 1% of $20,000 and that it is ridiculous think of the other 99% as going into technical aspects alone, even if 90% of the budget were for overhead that would still leave a budget of $2,000 for the technical aspects, which means a couple hundred bucks would be 10% of the available budget. Are you trying to say that adequate calorimetry wouldn't be worth even 10% of the budget allocated for equipment? On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:12 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: I would think that most of the $20K went to airfare, hotels and meals… you can’t expect the scientists to work for free… -Mark ** ** *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, June 03, 2013 9:42 AM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... ** ** I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would cost a couple hundred bucks maybe Obviously if this is true then the $20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would have been more than adequate. Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then it is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to discounting the report: ** ** Why bother issuing such a report unless you were trying to mind-f*ck everyone? ** ** Of course, I can come up with any of a variety of *plausible*explanations for why this couple hundred bucks estimate may be way off but then I haven't actually conducted calorimetry on CF runs. ** ** So the question is Did this skeptic get emotional because his estimate is correct or did he come up with his estimate because he was an emotional pseudo-skeptic? ** **
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Although it is true that a couple hundred bucks is only 1% of $20,000 and that it is ridiculous think of the other 99% as going into technical aspects alone, even if 90% of the budget were for overhead . . . I have significant experience with flow calorimeters. I would say: 1. It would end up costing much more than a few hundred dollars. 2. It would take weeks of testing and futzing around to make it work. 3. It would clog up and it would leak. They always do. I would hate to work with something like this running constantly for months! 4. The skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt it, as they did with Rossi's other flow calorimeters (some of which I will grant were not good). I agree with Dave Roberson that the Rossi used the best approach possible to eliminate the most questions and [the skeptics] still complained. The most questions means the most you can address in one test. No test can answer all questions or lay to rest all doubts. That's why you have to do multiple tests. - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Yes.. [snip] The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into which it operates. This is what should be expected.[/snip] Perhaps it is just me but too little seems to be said about the heat sinking.. It is obviously part of the control loop even if passive in ambient air but the coolant flow variation presents much opportunity for the warm up and ramping up of the thermal output. It is a push pull between heating and sinking like isometrics to attain body resistance. Rossi is trying to firmly control heating and cooling right at the balance point where runaway has initiated but the heat sinking stops it from gaining ground or damaging itself. It would have been interesting if blower fans were running on the destructive test reactor as it came up..my guess is that it would have still gotten just as hot and still self destructed despite all the additional heat being taken away by the fans with no additional current into the resistors once the system got up to the active region. Fran From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 2:21 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... I see what you are referring to. If the ECAT is allowed to operate in air of roughly the same local temperature, then it should behave the same. I understood that Dennis was suggesting a configuration with much tighter coupling to the coolant. The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into which it operates. This is what should be expected. My personal opinion is that Rossi used the best approach possible to eliminate the most questions and they still complained. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.commailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 2:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... David Roberson dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat would be conducted away from the core. I think the plan by Brian Ahern is to put the device in an air filled box with a copper pipe wound around the outside or the inside wall, and water flowing through the copper pipe. This would be a large flow calorimeter. I do not think it would be very accurate. I doubt it would be any better than the present calorimetry. There is a photo of a similar calorimeter at Defkalion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
OK, so the take-away messages is: No, the authors of the paper have not provided any rational for choosing their form of calorimetry -- not even informally. Moreover, the claim that adequate flow calorimetry for the E-Cat HT would cost 'a couple hundred bucks' likely indicates pseudoskepticism. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Although it is true that a couple hundred bucks is only 1% of $20,000 and that it is ridiculous think of the other 99% as going into technical aspects alone, even if 90% of the budget were for overhead . . . I have significant experience with flow calorimeters. I would say: 1. It would end up costing much more than a few hundred dollars. 2. It would take weeks of testing and futzing around to make it work. 3. It would clog up and it would leak. They always do. I would hate to work with something like this running constantly for months! 4. The skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt it, as they did with Rossi's other flow calorimeters (some of which I will grant were not good). I agree with Dave Roberson that the Rossi used the best approach possible to eliminate the most questions and [the skeptics] still complained. The most questions means the most you can address in one test. No test can answer all questions or lay to rest all doubts. That's why you have to do multiple tests. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
I did not envision them submersing the cat into the water. More like passing water/steam through as they did in their earlier tests with a flow system. It is very difficult to measure air heating. (note, I have also been able to do flow cal with racing car brake fluid at higher temps (you can do that up to about 300C) - hence my mention of copper coils. portable spas can be had for $600. Of course the golden standard is to have it unplugged from the wall and self sustaining for an extended time. I personally would be more accepting of a long running small wattage unit that was standalone than a kW unit plugged into the wall.- Say a 1 Watt-er on a glass table. I wonder if Rossi's system has a critical mass or if it can be scaled down. I would think that with the proper insulation its working temperature could be maintained with a smaller sample. Crude - I would not worry about trying to convince him. He is not the gatekeeper. I think it is best to ignore some criticism and just keep moving forward. A demo is not a science experiment no matter what the critics try to make it and the standards they wish to hold it to. Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires courage..Do not go where ever the path leads but go where there is none and leave a trail. Ralph Waldo Emerson D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:01:20 -0400 Dennis, I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the experiment that you propose. The recent tests were conducted in the open air and the thermal resistance that the ECAT works into has a very strong influence upon its operational parameters. If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat would be conducted away from the core. This loss of internal temperature likely would prevent the positive feedback from operating properly. I suspect that he went to a lot of trouble adjusting the parameters so that the experiment would be successful in the open air instead of the typical connection methods planned. Many skeptics insist upon a simple experiment where the ECAT is naked and is easy to observe as protection against scams. He has made a great deal of effort to accommodate their wishes and they are still not satisfied. Do you honestly think that Cude and the others would not come up with some other excuses to claim that the test was not accurate if set up as you suggest? I am convinced that there is no possible way to convince them that his device is real. This should be evident to anyone following the recent non sense that has been posted by the pseudo skeptics. Why would anyone expect for their behavior to change since they are 100% convinced that LENR is bunk. In their world, some form of scam must be taking place and they are the heroes that will save us from the bad guys. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 1:29 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... If the device was in the 1 to 5 kW range, then a simple hot tub should work. A typical 6 foot spa heats at about 1 degree F per hour at 1 kW. That, some copper tubing coils, and a utility pole meter should be enough. If you really wanted to be sure no extra wiring/power was going into it, perhaps a 1kW gas generator. I personally think heating two hot tubs side by side - one with a ecat and one with a R would be a fair demo and a fairly good proof. For smaller units (1 to 100W), perhaps heating a tea pot would be reasonable. So yes, I think it could be done on the cheap. However, realize Rossi's purpose is not to prove the science. I don't think he is things in the best way, but the science should be done in controlled science labs- The development in a warehouse perhaps heating a pool. People who want proof and science should do their own experiments. Anything else will not be adequate for those purposes. D2 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:42:07 -0500 From: jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would cost a couple hundred bucks maybe Obviously if this is true then the $20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would have been more than adequate. Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then it is easy to understand why a skeptic might
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Just being realistic James. A simple 'couple hundred bucks' calorimeter is NOT going to satisfy the skeptics; they will pick it apart and another test would have been wasted. Getting a quality data-acquisition system and multiple thermocouples/RTDs so there is redundancy in the measurements (enough to satisfy everyone) would be way more than a few hundred bucks. In our testing we used a LAN-based, hi-res data acquisition unit from NI and it was over $1000, plus low-mass, fast response RTDs at $50 each. And who is going to put all this together I suppose you expect them to work for free too. Was some of the measurement equipment rented? The original comment is way too simplistic and unrealistic. All I am saying is that a budget of $20K for doing several tests like was done is actually pretty cheap when one considers ALL the aspects that require $$. Sure, Rossi could have purposely chosen this air method after taking considerable time to find clever ways to fake it, but it is just as likely that with all the accusations of fraud using the flow calorimeter in previous tests, that he and the test team tried to arrange a different setup to avoid previous criticisms. I think it prudent to wait and see if the 6 month test makes further improvements given the feedback from the recent tests. -Mark From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 11:22 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... Do the arithmetic, Mark. Although it is true that a couple hundred bucks is only 1% of $20,000 and that it is ridiculous think of the other 99% as going into technical aspects alone, even if 90% of the budget were for overhead that would still leave a budget of $2,000 for the technical aspects, which means a couple hundred bucks would be 10% of the available budget. Are you trying to say that adequate calorimetry wouldn't be worth even 10% of the budget allocated for equipment? On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:12 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I would think that most of the $20K went to airfare, hotels and meals. you can't expect the scientists to work for free. -Mark From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:42 AM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would cost a couple hundred bucks maybe Obviously if this is true then the $20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would have been more than adequate. Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then it is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to discounting the report: Why bother issuing such a report unless you were trying to mind-f*ck everyone? Of course, I can come up with any of a variety of plausible explanations for why this couple hundred bucks estimate may be way off but then I haven't actually conducted calorimetry on CF runs. So the question is Did this skeptic get emotional because his estimate is correct or did he come up with his estimate because he was an emotional pseudo-skeptic?
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:40 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: OK, so the take-away messages is: No, the authors of the paper have not provided any rational for choosing their form of calorimetry -- not even informally. I do not see why they need to provide a rationale. The choice is manifestly a good one. It is simple, direct and foolproof. My first reaction to this a few weeks ago was this is exactly how I would do it. I have not heard from any experts who disagree. You have to find a method that works with a cell of these dimensions running at these temperatures, with control problems such that the cell sometimes melts. That is not an easy set of specifications to meet. Moreover, the claim that adequate flow calorimetry for the E-Cat HT would cost 'a couple hundred bucks' likely indicates pseudoskepticism. It certainly indicates someone who has never tried to construct a large flow calorimeter. The major problem with this idea is that a large flow calorimeter would be a custom-built instrument. As I said, it would take weeks to plug the leaks and find a flowmeter that does not clog up and stop working every few days. I would imagine they would spend a thousand dollars on that alone. What you end up with is a large custom-built gadget that no one understands or trusts, other than the people who made it. It would be like Scott Little's MOAC. In contrast, the present tests rely on industry-standard techniques and off-the-shelf instruments. Only three instruments: the watt meter, the IR camera, and the thermocouple to confirm the IR camera. Nothing could be simpler. I mean that: no method of calorimetry could be conceptually simpler than this. It is not precise, but it is reliable, and accurate enough to prove the point. It reduces the skeptics to arguing that a top-quality IR camera does not work according to the manufacturer's specifications. If I tell you that a flow calorimeter constructed by people who have never made one before does not work as well as they think it does, you would be well advised to believe me. If I tell you that an off-the-shelf IR camera used with standard emissivity surface samples supplied by the manufacturer is off by a factor of three, despite the fact that it agrees to within a few degrees with a thermocouple, you would think I'm crazy. You would be right. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
R. W. Emerson wrote: Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires courage..Do not go where ever the path leads but go where there is none and leave a trail. Ralph Waldo Emerson Fine except for the last sentence. Please do not select a method of calorimetry where is no path! Select a conventional method. The most boring method you can find, with off-the-shelf instruments and textbook techniques that no HVAC engineer would quarrel with. Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
I wrote: It is not precise, but it is reliable, and accurate enough to prove the point. The point is, this is a huge effect. It runs at high temperatures and it is at least three times input. McKubre needed a high precision flow calorimeter because he was trying to measure an effect that usually occurs at about a third of a watt and sometimes at 3 W with maybe 5 W of input. That is difficult. You need high precision and accuracy to be highly confident of the result. When there are 300 W going in a 900 W coming out and the cell is so hot it is sometimes incandescent you do not need flow calorimetry. Using a method that is more precise or more accurate than the task calls for does not increase mathematical confidence in the results, or my mental confidence. On the contrary, it decreases my confidence. It shows that the person doing the tests does not understand how to do an experiment. You should always select the simplest and most direct method that will work with adequate precision and accuracy. Never make things more complicated than they need to be. When digital thermometers became widely available in the 1970s, I saw some medical research from a grad student in Japan in which the temperature of lab rats was measured and reported to four digits of precision. Obviously, the temperature of the body of a rat is not uniform, and it varies from moment to moment. A medical researcher who would report that the body temperature was 99.6873°C does not inspire confidence in his ability. He looks like someone who does not understand biology, instruments, error bars, or gradeschool arithmetic. Meaningless extra digits of precision prove nothing. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
do not try to take the quote out of the obvious intended context. I was obviously referring to the pioneering efforts of a new field of understanding. example just because you make a new path does in no way mean you cannot use existing shoes... You missed the entire point. I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs. D2 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:05:57 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com R. W. Emerson wrote: Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires courage..Do not go where ever the path leads but go where there is none and leave a trail. Ralph Waldo Emerson Fine except for the last sentence. Please do not select a method of calorimetry where is no path! Select a conventional method. The most boring method you can find, with off-the-shelf instruments and textbook techniques that no HVAC engineer would quarrel with. Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed. Just heating a container of water - pool, spa, teapot You do not need to measure flow rates if the effect is significant. It avoids all the % steam questions, the emissivity numbers, the air flow, the cameras.. It is about the simplest measure of heat. D2 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:21:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I wrote: It is not precise, but it is reliable, and accurate enough to prove the point. The point is, this is a huge effect. It runs at high temperatures and it is at least three times input. McKubre needed a high precision flow calorimeter because he was trying to measure an effect that usually occurs at about a third of a watt and sometimes at 3 W with maybe 5 W of input. That is difficult. You need high precision and accuracy to be highly confident of the result. When there are 300 W going in a 900 W coming out and the cell is so hot it is sometimes incandescent you do not need flow calorimetry. Using a method that is more precise or more accurate than the task calls for does not increase mathematical confidence in the results, or my mental confidence. On the contrary, it decreases my confidence. It shows that the person doing the tests does not understand how to do an experiment. You should always select the simplest and most direct method that will work with adequate precision and accuracy. Never make things more complicated than they need to be. When digital thermometers became widely available in the 1970s, I saw some medical research from a grad student in Japan in which the temperature of lab rats was measured and reported to four digits of precision. Obviously, the temperature of the body of a rat is not uniform, and it varies from moment to moment. A medical researcher who would report that the body temperature was 99.6873°C does not inspire confidence in his ability. He looks like someone who does not understand biology, instruments, error bars, or gradeschool arithmetic. Meaningless extra digits of precision prove nothing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still validate the claim of significant over unity energy output. [mg] On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: R. W. Emerson wrote: Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires courage..Do not go where ever the path leads but go where there is none and leave a trail. Ralph Waldo Emerson Fine except for the last sentence. Please do not select a method of calorimetry where is no path! Select a conventional method. The most boring method you can find, with off-the-shelf instruments and textbook techniques that no HVAC engineer would quarrel with. Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 10:29:52 AM For smaller units (1 to 100W), perhaps heating a tea pot would be reasonable. Unfortunately, I think that the person who made the cup of tea bet has passed on. (My forgetory will produce his name in about 10 minutes while I'm doing something else)
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: do not try to take the quote out of the obvious intended context. Sure, we get that. I was just ragging on extraordinary claims claim, which I despise. I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs. That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to melt, or explode, so it is not an option. We have to take what mother nature has given us, and work with it as best we can. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Unfortunately, I think that the person who made the cup of tea bet has passed on. (My forgetory will produce his name in about 10 minutes while I'm doing something else) It wasn't tea .. it was a bet by a professor that would be paid off when a cold fusion device delivered 1 kWh to the grid, or was available at the local hardware store. His name STILL eludes me !!!
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
The reputed gain is so high - Rossi would be wise to forego calorimetry and go directly to conversion of heat to electricity. Here is the device that could do that - ORC in a small format. This device is perfect for the HotCat. http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/IT10_ORC_System.html At 6:1 gain, Rossi should be able to close the loop. From: mark.gi...@gmail.com Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still validate the claim of significant over unity energy output. [mg] On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: R. W. Emerson wrote: Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires courage..Do not go where ever the path leads but go where there is none and leave a trail. Ralph Waldo Emerson Fine except for the last sentence. Please do not select a method of calorimetry where is no path! Select a conventional method. The most boring method you can find, with off-the-shelf instruments and textbook techniques that no HVAC engineer would quarrel with. Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
yes, calorimetry is not needed IF you believe the claims, methods, and the effect. As you may know, I don't doubt the reality of CF/LENR in general. However, if you goal is to convince non-believer then it is best to avoid systems where you have to know the exact waveforms, cables, instruments, material emissivity's,. you name it. Perhaps the reaction is controllable, perhaps not. Perhaps the reproducibility between samples is solved, perhaps not. Heating a pot/container of water from a standalone unit is the way to go in my humble opinion. Perhaps there will be a commercial product in the near future or not. Perhaps there will be a real company that will come out and endorse the devices in the near future, perhaps not. Until that time their will be vocal skeptics. And the more complex and calculation based the demo, the less likely it will be to accepted by the skeptics. Again, from my vantage point, the best demo would be a stand alone that does not require any calculations or understanding of how a specific instrument work or was used. That should become possible somewhere around a COP of 5 to 10. Until then there will be doubts. I think we are within striking distance of that. (note at COP 6 you would need a 17% eff. engine - that is will within range if you are working between 300C and 25C). And no, I don't think that they were over unity by more than an order of magnitude- Only a factor of perhaps 6. I need to go back and check that. D2 From: mgi...@gibbs.com Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 12:55:19 -0700 Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still validate the claim of significant over unity energy output. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? Yes. But power, not energy. If the difference between input and output had been small, than it might have been an error (with zero real excess power) which over a long time adds up to a large amount of bogus excess energy. The difference between 300 W and 900 W is so large that any reasonable method of measuring it, when performed by experts, is irrefutable. This method is good because it is simple, employing only a watt meter, an IR camera, a thermocouple, and a calibration of a blank cell. Skeptics have not found a plausible error. They never will. There are no plausible errors, unless you want to toss out the Stefan-Boltzmann law. (Yugo said it is too complicated.) There is only the remote possibility that Rossi has discovered a way to fool a commercial off-the-shelf watt meter. In other words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still validate the claim of significant over unity energy output. Right. But, as I said, that is because the instantaneous power is high. Also because all measurements are conservative. In every case in which there is a choice of methods, one which would underestimate power and another that might overestimate it, they chose the method which underestimates. The actual power must be considerably higher. It cannot be lower. Not if you believe elementary concepts such as the fact that a cylinder viewed from the side is not a flat surface. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 1:22:05 PM And no, I don't think that they were over unity by more than an order of magnitude- Only a factor of perhaps 6. I need to go back and check that. The COP was 6 (Dec) and 3 (March). The order of magnitude was energy density over chemistry, making the most conservative estimate -- eg using the entire weight or volume of the inner cylinder, rather than just the pixie dust.
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
bob park Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:16:16 -0700 From: a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... Unfortunately, I think that the person who made the cup of tea bet has passed on. (My forgetory will produce his name in about 10 minutes while I'm doing something else) It wasn't tea .. it was a bet by a professor that would be paid off when a cold fusion device delivered 1 kWh to the grid, or was available at the local hardware store. His name STILL eludes me !!!
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: yes, calorimetry is not needed IF you believe the claims, methods, and the effect. As you may know, I don't doubt the reality of CF/LENR in general. However, if you goal is to convince non-believer then it is best to avoid systems where you have to know the exact waveforms, cables, instruments, material emissivity's,. You do not need to know the exact waveforms. I can tell by looking that the power is off most of the time. Whether it is off 50% or 70% of the time makes no difference. You do not need to know the exact emissivity. You can assume the reactor is a black box, with the IR camera parameter set to 1, while you can ignore the thermocouple reading. You still get overwhelming excess power. The whole point of this method is that it requires no exact measurements although they did in fact make exact measurements. If this does not convince a nonbeliever that person does not understand elementary 19th century physics. Flow calorimetry has much to be said for it but it is more complicated and less believable than this. A lot more can go wrong with it, and usually does go wrong with it for the first several weeks. you name it. Perhaps the reaction is controllable, perhaps not. Since the cell melted the reaction is obviously not well controlled. Again, from my vantage point, the best demo would be a stand alone that does not require any calculations or understanding of how a specific instrument work or was used. That should become possible somewhere around a COP of 5 to 10. Until then there will be doubts. But these doubts are not rational. People who continue to have doubts with this test will have doubts with any other test including a standalone self-sustaining demonstration. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed. Just heating a container of water - pool, spa, teapot I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you would maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks. The body (the bath and its container) would be losing heat into the surroundings. It amounts to more or less the same thing they are doing now, with a bigger body and more thermal mass, plus evaporation and other complicated stuff. I do not see an advantage. A spa or a pond is not a simple thing to model. You do not need to measure flow rates if the effect is significant. You don't need to measure it now. You have to depend on Drs. Stefan and Boltzmann being right. As for convection, you just gotta look up the numbers in an HVAC textbook. It avoids all the % steam questions, the emissivity numbers, the air flow, the cameras.. It does not avoid the steam question! On the contrary, with a body water you are right back to that problem, with evaporation. There are no serious questions about emissivity, air flow, or cameras. The emissivity can be set to 1 (worst case). The air flow comes out of an engineering textbook. We know the camera and emissivity are right because the thermocouple confirms them. All questions are addressed and all are closed. It is about the simplest measure of heat. The present method is the simplest. Using a body of hot water heated to terminal temperature would be more complicated. The present method is not the most accurate but I doubt that a large body of water would be more accurate. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the loop. Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 4:20 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... The reputed gain is sohigh – Rossi would be wise to forego calorimetry and go directly toconversion of heat to electricity. Here is the device thatcould do that – ORC in a small format. This device is perfect for theHotCat. http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/IT10_ORC_System.html At 6:1 gain, Rossi shouldbe able to close the loop. From:mark.gi...@gmail.com Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that'sthe one with the propeller on top) isn't the argument about the needfor calorimetry made irrelevant the amount of energy observed to havebeen generated? In other words, even with more precise measurements the exactenergy output couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitudelower which would still validate the claim of significant over unity energyoutput. [mg] On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: R. W. Emerson wrote: Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires courage..Do not go where ever the path leads but go where there is none and leave a trail. Ralph Waldo Emerson Fine except for the last sentence. Please do not selecta method of calorimetry where is no path! Select a conventional method.The most boring method you can find, with off-the-shelf instruments andtextbook techniques that no HVAC engineer would quarrel with. Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proofyou can come up with. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
That is not what I want to hear. that is what I am working toward. standalone and a cup of tea for NI I doubt I will have it by then just a small 1:3 if I am lucky. But if I can encourage one person to do experiments, I will be happy and can crawl back under my rock. But perhaps Defkalion will be blowing steam. Who knows? The last I heard Brillion was around 2:1 in liquid. Perhaps it is time to step aside and let the commercial people do their thing. D2 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:30:43 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ... But these doubts are not rational. People who continue to have doubts with this test will have doubts with any other test including a standalone self-sustaining demonstration. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
I wrote: You do not need to measure flow rates if the effect is significant. You don't need to measure it now. You have to depend on Drs. Stefan and Boltzmann being right. As for convection, you just gotta look up the numbers in an HVAC textbook. I confused the issue a little here. Dennis meant that you do not need to measure the inlet and outlet temperatures to conduct flow calorimetry. You can simply circulate all the water from a large body like a bath, going from bath to cell, and splosh back into the bath. You then observe the terminal temperature of the bath, comparing it to another bath with another heater. It is a giant isoperibolic calorimeter at a moderate temperature. (Whereas the present arrangement is a small, hot isoperibolic calorimeter.) I meant that you do not need to worry about flow rates with the present method. There is no flow involved. I also meant that you do not need to worry about the airflow cooling the cell because you can look it up in a book. Granted, it is not very accurate but HVAC engineers have been doing this sort of thing for a long time, so it is reliable. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
You may want to refigure that if you want to run for extended times- an Olympic pool (likely overkill) has a volume of 2.5 million liters and some are indoors and have covers. ( I would just use bubble wrap) You could easily go long enough to be an order of mag or two above chemical. The advantage is if they are truly at 3:1 then you only need to measure 1 time and 1 temp for the output. That is a lot fewer items. And indoor heated pools could give you a good control measure. But it really doesn't matter, they will do what they do. They only need to make their sponsors happy not Crude. I hope the best for them. D2 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:46:12 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed. Just heating a container of water - pool, spa, teapot I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you would maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks. The body (the bath and its container) would be losing heat into the surroundings. It amounts to more or less the same thing they are doing now, with a bigger body and more thermal mass, plus evaporation and other complicated stuff. I do not see an advantage.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: That is not what I want to hear. You do not want to hear that the cell will go out of control and melt? It will though, whether you want to hear that or not. It has already melted. I do not understand what you have in mind here. Nature allows us to do some things and not others. We have to work with what nature allows, not what we would wish for in an ideal universe. As long as we are wishing, I wish there was a form of cold fusion that directly produced electricity. That would sure be convenient! Now tell me: what was the point of my wishful thinking? What purpose does it serve, to wish for things we cannot have? Obviously with more engineering RD a self-sustaining Rossi reactor could be made. This is just a matter of engineering. It would cost a great deal of money and time. It would be a distraction. It would not prove anything the present test does not prove. Mary Yugo would insist it is fake. Robert Park would ignore it. Why bother? Just use a different watt meter next time and all remaining questions vanish as surely as they would with a self-sustaining reactor. that is what I am working toward. standalone and a cup of tea for NI A standalone cup of tea would be marvelous, but far less convincing than the test conducted by Levi et al. it would also be much convincing proof that the effect can be made into a practical source of energy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: You may want to refigure that if you want to run for extended times- an Olympic pool (likely overkill) has a volume of 2.5 million liters and some are indoors and have covers. That would be extremely noisy, to say the least. Changes in air temperature, humidity, sunlight, hours of day and other factors would swamp the effects of a 900 W heater. That is like having 2 people swimming in the pool. * I doubt you could detect the heat from that. - Jed * Swimming the breaststroke takes 475 W according to this source: http://cnx.org/content/m42153/latest/?collection=col11406/latest
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Dennis, The best proof is one that has the least possibility of error. Every complication that is added to the setup results in many more issues to question by the skeptics. The technique used by the testers of the ECAT is good enough for any reasonable scientist to accept and all this non sense we are hearing from the skeptics is ridiculous. You fail to realize that there is no way what so ever to meet their requirements since they do not believe LENR is possible. Any test results will be found lacking by their measures. The more complicated the test setup is, the more ways that they will suggest a scam is possible. The latest report has been shown to be solid from a normal technical point of view. For this reason, the skeptics now insist that a scam must be the answer. They have failed to prove their position entirely, and most normal skeptics would realize that perhaps they were wrong in the beliefs. Not this group. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 5:03 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... You may want to refigure that if you want to run for extended times- an Olympic pool (likely overkill) has a volume of 2.5 million liters and some are indoors and have covers. ( I would just use bubble wrap) You could easily go long enough to be an order of mag or two above chemical. The advantage is if they are truly at 3:1 then you only need to measure 1 time and 1 temp for the output. That is a lot fewer items. And indoor heated pools could give you a good control measure. But it really doesn't matter, they will do what they do. They only need to make their sponsors happy not Crude. I hope the best for them. D2 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:46:12 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed. Just heating a container of water - pool, spa, teapot I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you would maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks. The body (the bath and its container) would be losing heat into the surroundings. It amounts to more or less the same thing they are doing now, with a bigger body and more thermal mass, plus evaporation and other complicated stuff. I do not see an advantage.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the loop. Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job. Correctomundo. This will complicate matters. It probably means they need batteries and inverters. As sure as day follows night, the skeptics will say these inverters and batteries are fake, unnecessarily complicated, and they are only there to hide fraud. There was a time when this field desperately needed a standalone self powered reactor to prove the reaction is real. That is because absolute power was low, ranging from 5 to 100 W. However, now that Rossi has developed high-powered reactors ranging from 500 to . . . 1 MW (I guess?) the need for standalone reactors is reduced. High-power plus a large input to output ratio together prove nearly everything that a smaller self-sustaining reaction would prove. They make it obvious that with enough engineering RD a self-sustaining reactor can be made. The only way these results could be wrong would be if Rossi has somehow found a way to fool a watt meter. If he is capable of doing that he is also capable of making something that looks like a self-sustaining demonstration but is not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:22 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: yes, calorimetry is not needed IF you believe the claims, methods, and the effect. The claims are that the device produces significantly over unity, the methods have been alluded to but Rossi is definitely not public with this and he may well be lying (e.g. there may be no catalyst). The effect seems to have been demonstrated by the tests. As you may know, I don't doubt the reality of CF/LENR in general. However, if you goal is to convince non-believer then it is best to avoid systems where you have to know the exact waveforms, cables, instruments, material emissivity's,. you name it. Perhaps the reaction is controllable, perhaps not. Perhaps the reproducibility between samples is solved, perhaps not. Ah, now we have it ... it's the questions of reproducability and controlability, Heating a pot/container of water from a standalone unit is the way to go in my humble opinion. Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy without stopping would be pretty damn convincing. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy without stopping would be pretty damn convincing. Not really. The skeptics would come up with a hundred reasons why that was faked. They would say this was actually two identical electric vehicles, which were swapped out from time to time while passing through tunnels. They will say the video record was faked. The claim here is excess heat from a device with AC electric power input. The best way to measure that is by using standard engineering methods for measuring electricity and heat from HVAC systems. The best people to do that are engineers. The best organization to evaluate such results -- best by far -- is a place like Elforsk or EPRI. Not the APS or the American Astronomical Society. People who demand a stand alone, self powered reaction should pay for it. I expect it would cost millions to make one that is safe. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Ah, now we have it ... it's the questions of reproducability and controlability, But these questions have no bearing on whether the effect is real or not. During the Vanguard era of US rocket development in the 1950s, rockets were extremely difficult to reproduce and they were so badly controlled most of them exploded. However, no one suggested that rockets do not exist. Reproducibility and controllability have ZERO, ZIP, NO relevance to whether the effect is real or not. They only determine whether its commercially useful, or cost-effective. Rockets are not still not well controlled. They often explode, so the insurance rates are high. You pay extra on your satellite TV bill to cover this. Some types of semiconductors in the 1950s had low reproducibility rates which meant they remained more expensive than vacuum tubes for several years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Unfortunately, I think that the person who made the cup of tea bet has passed on. Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his tea.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his tea. I'm hoping we can do something more dramatic, on a larger scale. Something like what the Japanese authorities did to the notorious criminal Ishikawa Goemon in 1594 would be ideal, but I guess that's out. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishikawa_Goemon They still call old fashioned iron cauldron baths Goemon baths in his honor: http://dolphin2510.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-japanese-used-to-take-bath-goemon.html This says they used to take a bath this way. Ahem. Some of us still do. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Dave, It would be nice to get Infinity Turbine to donate a few weeks of testing time on their ORC device which had been modified with a DC generator driving a bank of Ultracaps. The caps would be sized so that there is maybe 15 minutes of cushion in the energy storage – but no batteries. Cree makes a 3-phase inverter that is 95+% efficient from DC. With this kind of setup the penalty for both storage and DC/AC conversions would be low – less than 10%. With 6:1 gain and 21% OTC efficiency at 600C, there could be just enough to close the loop. Jones Here is the Cree demo of high efficiency DC/DC. As I understand it, DC/AC is at least this good or better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8F4s86d7PY From: David Roberson It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the loop. Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job. From: Jones Beene The reputed gain is so high – Rossi would be wise to forego calorimetry and go directly to conversion of heat to electricity. Here is the device that could do that – ORC in a small format. This device is perfect for the HotCat. http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/IT10_ORC_System.html At 6:1 gain, Rossi should be able to close the loop. From: mark.gi...@gmail.com Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still validate the claim of significant over unity energy output.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It would be nice to get Infinity Turbine to donate a few weeks of testing time on their ORC device which had been modified with a DC generator driving a bank of Ultracaps. This would be nice. It would be a lot of fun. I personally would feel gratified and pleased to see this. However, it would not convince a single skeptic. They would simply say that all this equipment is fake or there is a hidden wire or some other trick. Frankly I don't see what purpose this test would serve at this stage in the development. Can you tell us what this would show that the present tests do not? Would this raise your confidence in the results? If so, why? If you suspect Rossi might be sneaking power in through the AC lines, surely it would be easier to address this with something like a battery backup, a generator, or a better watt meter. I think this would be a distraction and a waste of money. The skeptics would also say that any test conducted in Rossi's presence or in his laboratory cannot be fully convincing. There is something be said for that. I would prefer to see the gadget tested in an independent laboratory. Heck I would prefer to see 10,000 copies of this device being tested in laboratories all over the world. - Jed
