Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Keep in mind that Rossi and Focardi--a respected scientist--worked hand in hand and Rossi did not reveal all the engineering of the reactor to Focardi. I do not think there was any fraud on anyone's part. Lastly, I would say Rossi was a victim of fraud, not a perpetrator of fraud. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 8:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment Just to be clear, I'm not saying I disagree with the objections to Rossi having handled the charge. In general one has the impression scientists are pretty collegial with one another. They place a lot of trust in one another. One scientist will say to another, I'd like to take a second look at what you've done. Can you help me out, here? But I want the study to be independent of yours, so I'm going to do all of the analysis myself. I just need you to help me out with this, this and this. The two would collaborate in that way, and then the study would be called independent. It would also be considered as such by publications such as Nature and Science. There would be no eyebrows that would be raised about this claim, because there is a professional ethic that the scientists are assumed to follow, and their reputations are on the line. Sometimes the protocol is cranked up a notch, and you get single- and double-blind studies. The context is not a concern about fraud but a concern about the researchers involved being unduly influenced by what they already know. Occasionally, perhaps, there is a shadow of a concern about fraud, as might have been on some people's minds when the double-blind study was done that Melvin Miles participated in in the early nineties, where they looked at the question of how much helium was evolving from electrolytic PdD systems. In the case of Rossi, the context is different. Rossi is not a member of the research establishment, so different rules are been applied, and concerns of fraud have been voiced on a number of occasions by skeptical scientists. I do not necessarily disagree with this application of a different standard. I only point it out. I do wonder whether Rossi would have been treated the same way if his background had been in research science and he did not have the colorful personality that he has. The standard of extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is a phrase that goes back to Marcello Truzzi. It has been debated here on several different occasions. It has been used by skeptics to justify whatever they want. To that extent, it does not seem like a very useful heuristic. Eric On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Eric, the standard amongst academic colleagues is extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The standard is that replication should be done by uninvolved parties. Neither Rossi nor Levi, et all was uninvolved. Levi and friends had their reputation on the line from the claims from the first report they did.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
I don't believe Ed Storms and Kiva Labs has SIMS or ICP-MS. I know he as an SEM with EDX capability. Actually, MFMP is looking to catalog organizations and individuals who have access to various means of testing who might be willing to look at the materials we make. I know that Ed is willing to help us with SEM and EDX, when he is available. Who can we get to help MFMP with the following: - SIMS for near surface isotopic analysis - ICP-MS for analysis of bulk samples - Tritium detection - Light gas isotopic analysis [high resolution for m/z8] - Light gas RGA [low resolution mass spec] - XRD - Thermocouple calibration furnace - IR spectroscopy Please feel to private email me if you think you can help. Bob Higgins On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Higgins comments are right on. MFMP should do mass spec analysis of the Ni particles to determine isotopic concentration in the Parkhomov test. If the Parkhomov test actually produces a variety of Ni--some reacted and some not reacted--that would be a nice comparison to do. Does anyone know if Ed has done the isotopic analysis suggested by Higgins? It seems it is a definite must to do and I would be surprised it has not been done by somebody. The Lugano test was restricted by plan it seems to limit the determination of changes of the fuel/loading from beginning to end. This was in way of protecting IP of Industrial Heat. The key was the significant production of excess heat to demonstrate a useful energy producing device, not a scientific explanation of the theory of LENR, in contrast to the wishes of many. Great changes in society most frequently happen as a result of contrarian individuals and their ideas. In some societies such individuals are considered special and honored. In others where the status quo is honored and promoted, they are despised and called fraudsters. I think Rossi belongs to the former group. Dr King was thought by many as a contrarian and despised. However his actions managed to change the social fabric of this country and the World. He subsequently has become honored. In Native American society, King and people like would be honored, and in the Lakota people he would have been a heyoka person. In early English society, jesters were such people and the kings and queens wisely kept them around. Bob Cook - Original Message - *m:* Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, March 08, 2015 9:51 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment Some features of the Lugano HotCat ash can now be identified based on the follow-on work of MFMP and Parkhomov. When trying to decide whether the Lugano team actually sampled the important part of the HotCat ash, have a look at the TPR2 - Apendix 3 - Figure 2, the SEM photo of Particle 1. This image is almost exactly the same as the SEM photos that Ed Storms took of the MFMP sample of the sintered Ni core material (molded into a rod matching the ID of the tube) that started out as Vale T255 carbonyl powder. Here is the link to the folder of images: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2fnRiS3FkLW9md2w1RkZGc0oxYU1pUHgxRmkzS1Znbkx1Wk1UREJOZHduakUusp=sharing It is highly likely that the Ni cores look the same in all 3 reactors (HotCat, Parkhomov, MFMP). I wish the experimenters had been more specific about which samples were analyzed by TOF-SIMS and ICP-MS. It would have been valuable to have SEM analysis of the actual particles used in the MS studies to understand from where, within the reactor, these particles had come. However, the Lugano experimenters did not have the benefit of the MFMP results when they went to identify their samples, so they had no way to identify what place within the reactor the sample represented. The MFMP Bang! was serendipitous because it left the entire Ni charge as a sintered molded rod of Ni covered in Li-Al alloy metal - like Lugano Figure 2 (see the Debris photo in the folder linked above). The Lugano Appendix 3-Figure 2-Particle 1 is representative of the sintered Ni core. Since Ed's analysis shows that the Ni dissolved only to a small extent in the Li-Al molten metal, most of the ash analysis of the Ni isotopic ratios must have been from a sample of the core because that's the only place where there is a significant amount of Ni. Note: Ed's EDX analysis of the solidified Li-Al showed almost 4% Ni, but the percentage did not include the Li (which EDX does not detect), so the actual percentage of Ni in solution may have been more like 2%. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Higgins comments are right on. MFMP should do mass spec analysis of the Ni particles to determine isotopic concentration in the Parkhomov test. If the Parkhomov test actually produces a variety of Ni--some reacted and some not reacted--that would be a nice comparison to do. Does anyone know if Ed has done the isotopic analysis suggested by Higgins? It seems it is a definite must to do and I would be surprised it has not been done by somebody. The Lugano test was restricted by plan it seems to limit the determination of changes of the fuel/loading from beginning to end. This was in way of protecting IP of Industrial Heat. The key was the significant production of excess heat to demonstrate a useful energy producing device, not a scientific explanation of the theory of LENR, in contrast to the wishes of many. Great changes in society most frequently happen as a result of contrarian individuals and their ideas. In some societies such individuals are considered special and honored. In others where the status quo is honored and promoted, they are despised and called fraudsters. I think Rossi belongs to the former group. Dr King was thought by many as a contrarian and despised. However his actions managed to change the social fabric of this country and the World. He subsequently has become honored. In Native American society, King and people like would be honored, and in the Lakota people he would have been a heyoka person. In early English society, jesters were such people and the kings and queens wisely kept them around. Bob Cook - Original Message - m: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment Some features of the Lugano HotCat ash can now be identified based on the follow-on work of MFMP and Parkhomov. When trying to decide whether the Lugano team actually sampled the important part of the HotCat ash, have a look at the TPR2 - Apendix 3 - Figure 2, the SEM photo of Particle 1. This image is almost exactly the same as the SEM photos that Ed Storms took of the MFMP sample of the sintered Ni core material (molded into a rod matching the ID of the tube) that started out as Vale T255 carbonyl powder. Here is the link to the folder of images: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2fnRiS3FkLW9md2w1RkZGc0oxYU1pUHgxRmkzS1Znbkx1Wk1UREJOZHduakUusp=sharing It is highly likely that the Ni cores look the same in all 3 reactors (HotCat, Parkhomov, MFMP). I wish the experimenters had been more specific about which samples were analyzed by TOF-SIMS and ICP-MS. It would have been valuable to have SEM analysis of the actual particles used in the MS studies to understand from where, within the reactor, these particles had come. However, the Lugano experimenters did not have the benefit of the MFMP results when they went to identify their samples, so they had no way to identify what place within the reactor the sample represented. The MFMP Bang! was serendipitous because it left the entire Ni charge as a sintered molded rod of Ni covered in Li-Al alloy metal - like Lugano Figure 2 (see the Debris photo in the folder linked above). The Lugano Appendix 3-Figure 2-Particle 1 is representative of the sintered Ni core. Since Ed's analysis shows that the Ni dissolved only to a small extent in the Li-Al molten metal, most of the ash analysis of the Ni isotopic ratios must have been from a sample of the core because that's the only place where there is a significant amount of Ni. Note: Ed's EDX analysis of the solidified Li-Al showed almost 4% Ni, but the percentage did not include the Li (which EDX does not detect), so the actual percentage of Ni in solution may have been more like 2%. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
2015-03-08 16:50 GMT+01:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: The standard of extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is a phrase that goes back to Marcello Truzzi. It has been debated here on several different occasions. It has been used by skeptics to justify whatever they want. To that extent, it does not seem like a very useful heuristic. moreover E-cat have nothing extraordinary in the sense that it is in line with a long chain of LENr experiments done with palladium hydrides, nickel hydrides, powders, heat shock experiments, as explain it is mostly used to reject anything and invert the charge of evidence when claiming incredible conspiracy to explain the results. people have to see the size of the conspiracy that have to be established to justify that LENR and E-cat is extraordinary... you have to assume thousands of fraudsters, despite no state funding bias, despite scientific societies oppositions, despite low budgets... you have to assume that Industrial heat is fooled, despite claiming two independent verifications, and continue being fooled currently... while they have deep pocket enough to just dump the company to evoid a scandal. what is extraordinary, requiring extraordinary evidence is the fraud theory.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Bob-- I thought you indicated that ICP_MS was assomplisheD--I wish the experimenters had been more specific about which samples were analyzed by TOF-SIMS and ICP-MS. It would have been valuable to have SEM analysis of the actual particles used in the MS studies to understand from where, within the reactor, these particles had come. What MS studies are you talking about? Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment I don't believe Ed Storms and Kiva Labs has SIMS or ICP-MS. I know he as an SEM with EDX capability. Actually, MFMP is looking to catalog organizations and individuals who have access to various means of testing who might be willing to look at the materials we make. I know that Ed is willing to help us with SEM and EDX, when he is available. Who can we get to help MFMP with the following: a.. SIMS for near surface isotopic analysis b.. ICP-MS for analysis of bulk samples c.. Tritium detection d.. Light gas isotopic analysis [high resolution for m/z8] e.. Light gas RGA [low resolution mass spec] f.. XRD g.. Thermocouple calibration furnace h.. IR spectroscopy Please feel to private email me if you think you can help. Bob Higgins On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Higgins comments are right on. MFMP should do mass spec analysis of the Ni particles to determine isotopic concentration in the Parkhomov test. If the Parkhomov test actually produces a variety of Ni--some reacted and some not reacted--that would be a nice comparison to do. Does anyone know if Ed has done the isotopic analysis suggested by Higgins? It seems it is a definite must to do and I would be surprised it has not been done by somebody. The Lugano test was restricted by plan it seems to limit the determination of changes of the fuel/loading from beginning to end. This was in way of protecting IP of Industrial Heat. The key was the significant production of excess heat to demonstrate a useful energy producing device, not a scientific explanation of the theory of LENR, in contrast to the wishes of many. Great changes in society most frequently happen as a result of contrarian individuals and their ideas. In some societies such individuals are considered special and honored. In others where the status quo is honored and promoted, they are despised and called fraudsters. I think Rossi belongs to the former group. Dr King was thought by many as a contrarian and despised. However his actions managed to change the social fabric of this country and the World. He subsequently has become honored. In Native American society, King and people like would be honored, and in the Lakota people he would have been a heyoka person. In early English society, jesters were such people and the kings and queens wisely kept them around. Bob Cook - Original Message - m: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment Some features of the Lugano HotCat ash can now be identified based on the follow-on work of MFMP and Parkhomov. When trying to decide whether the Lugano team actually sampled the important part of the HotCat ash, have a look at the TPR2 - Apendix 3 - Figure 2, the SEM photo of Particle 1. This image is almost exactly the same as the SEM photos that Ed Storms took of the MFMP sample of the sintered Ni core material (molded into a rod matching the ID of the tube) that started out as Vale T255 carbonyl powder. Here is the link to the folder of images: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2fnRiS3FkLW9md2w1RkZGc0oxYU1pUHgxRmkzS1Znbkx1Wk1UREJOZHduakUusp=sharing It is highly likely that the Ni cores look the same in all 3 reactors (HotCat, Parkhomov, MFMP). I wish the experimenters had been more specific about which samples were analyzed by TOF-SIMS and ICP-MS. It would have been valuable to have SEM analysis of the actual particles used in the MS studies to understand from where, within the reactor, these particles had come. However, the Lugano experimenters did not have the benefit of the MFMP results when they went to identify their samples, so they had no way to identify what place within the reactor the sample represented. The MFMP Bang! was serendipitous because it left the entire Ni charge as a sintered molded rod of Ni covered in Li-Al alloy metal - like Lugano Figure 2 (see the Debris photo in the folder linked above). The Lugano Appendix 3-Figure 2-Particle 1 is representative of the sintered Ni core. Since Ed's analysis shows that the Ni dissolved only to a small extent in the Li-Al molten metal
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Besides the idea of testing the Ni particles, which I cannot comment on due to lack of understanding, the rest of your statement I really like. In particular the sentence below is great. The Lugano test was restricted by plan it seems to limit the determination of changes of the fuel/loading from beginning to end. This was in way of protecting IP of Industrial Heat. The key was the significant production of excess heat to demonstrate a useful energy producing device, not a scientific explanation of the theory of LENR, in contrast to the wishes of many. It is logical - it makes sense. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Eric, the standard amongst academic colleagues is extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The standard is that replication should be done by uninvolved parties. Neither Rossi nor Levi, et all was uninvolved. Levi and friends had their reputation on the line from the claims from the first report they did. On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Since Rossi was in control at the critical points – the fraud issue revolves around his honesty. What you say is true. But in applying this standard, it seems we are going well beyond the kind of protocol that academic scientists would apply to themselves. We are using a standard that one would use with someone who cannot be trusted. We are not using a standard that would be used between academic colleagues in order to maintain scientific independence. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:31:01 -0600: Hi Bob, [snip] IIRC Ed is also an expert in Tritium detection, though I'm not sure whether or not he has the equipment needed at present. You should ask. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
I was referring to the SIMS and ICP-MS that was done for the Lugano experiment. These tests have not been done for the MFMP ash. We do not have partners for these tests [yet]. On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Bob-- I thought you indicated that ICP_MS was assomplisheD--I wish the experimenters had been more specific about which samples were analyzed by TOF-SIMS and ICP-MS. It would have been valuable to have SEM analysis of the actual particles used in the MS studies to understand from where, within the reactor, these particles had come. What MS studies are you talking about? Bob Cook - Original Message - *From:* Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, March 08, 2015 1:31 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment I don't believe Ed Storms and Kiva Labs has SIMS or ICP-MS. I know he as an SEM with EDX capability. Actually, MFMP is looking to catalog organizations and individuals who have access to various means of testing who might be willing to look at the materials we make. I know that Ed is willing to help us with SEM and EDX, when he is available. Who can we get to help MFMP with the following: - SIMS for near surface isotopic analysis - ICP-MS for analysis of bulk samples - Tritium detection - Light gas isotopic analysis [high resolution for m/z8] - Light gas RGA [low resolution mass spec] - XRD - Thermocouple calibration furnace - IR spectroscopy Please feel to private email me if you think you can help. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Just to be clear, I'm not saying I disagree with the objections to Rossi having handled the charge. In general one has the impression scientists are pretty collegial with one another. They place a lot of trust in one another. One scientist will say to another, I'd like to take a second look at what you've done. Can you help me out, here? But I want the study to be independent of yours, so I'm going to do all of the analysis myself. I just need you to help me out with this, this and this. The two would collaborate in that way, and then the study would be called independent. It would also be considered as such by publications such as *Nature* and *Science*. There would be no eyebrows that would be raised about this claim, because there is a professional ethic that the scientists are assumed to follow, and their reputations are on the line. Sometimes the protocol is cranked up a notch, and you get single- and double-blind studies. The context is not a concern about fraud but a concern about the researchers involved being unduly influenced by what they already know. Occasionally, perhaps, there is a shadow of a concern about fraud, as might have been on some people's minds when the double-blind study was done that Melvin Miles participated in in the early nineties, where they looked at the question of how much helium was evolving from electrolytic PdD systems. In the case of Rossi, the context is different. Rossi is not a member of the research establishment, so different rules are been applied, and concerns of fraud have been voiced on a number of occasions by skeptical scientists. I do not necessarily disagree with this application of a different standard. I only point it out. I do wonder whether Rossi would have been treated the same way if his background had been in research science and he did not have the colorful personality that he has. The standard of extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is a phrase that goes back to Marcello Truzzi. It has been debated here on several different occasions. It has been used by skeptics to justify whatever they want. To that extent, it does not seem like a very useful heuristic. Eric On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Eric, the standard amongst academic colleagues is extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The standard is that replication should be done by uninvolved parties. Neither Rossi nor Levi, et all was uninvolved. Levi and friends had their reputation on the line from the claims from the first report they did.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Some features of the Lugano HotCat ash can now be identified based on the follow-on work of MFMP and Parkhomov. When trying to decide whether the Lugano team actually sampled the important part of the HotCat ash, have a look at the TPR2 - Apendix 3 - Figure 2, the SEM photo of Particle 1. This image is almost exactly the same as the SEM photos that Ed Storms took of the MFMP sample of the sintered Ni core material (molded into a rod matching the ID of the tube) that started out as Vale T255 carbonyl powder. Here is the link to the folder of images: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2fnRiS3FkLW9md2w1RkZGc0oxYU1pUHgxRmkzS1Znbkx1Wk1UREJOZHduakUusp=sharing It is highly likely that the Ni cores look the same in all 3 reactors (HotCat, Parkhomov, MFMP). I wish the experimenters had been more specific about which samples were analyzed by TOF-SIMS and ICP-MS. It would have been valuable to have SEM analysis of the actual particles used in the MS studies to understand from where, within the reactor, these particles had come. However, the Lugano experimenters did not have the benefit of the MFMP results when they went to identify their samples, so they had no way to identify what place within the reactor the sample represented. The MFMP Bang! was serendipitous because it left the entire Ni charge as a sintered molded rod of Ni covered in Li-Al alloy metal - like Lugano Figure 2 (see the Debris photo in the folder linked above). The Lugano Appendix 3-Figure 2-Particle 1 is representative of the sintered Ni core. Since Ed's analysis shows that the Ni dissolved only to a small extent in the Li-Al molten metal, most of the ash analysis of the Ni isotopic ratios must have been from a sample of the core because that's the only place where there is a significant amount of Ni. Note: Ed's EDX analysis of the solidified Li-Al showed almost 4% Ni, but the percentage did not include the Li (which EDX does not detect), so the actual percentage of Ni in solution may have been more like 2%. Bob Higgins
RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com Ø the statement I refer to were not in the report, but were specific answer given later. Yes that is a major problem – a recollection coming months later from the memory of an embarrassed scientist who had already been caught napping on the job – is essentially not worth very much, comparatively. Ø Ø in fact the statement in the report was ambiguous. Sorry, but there is nothing ambiguous in Levi stating that Rossi intervened remove the powder charge. How much clearer can one get? … and this is the official report – not an exculpatory memory coming months later. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
the statement I refer to were not in the report, but were specific answer given later. in fact teh statement in the report was ambiguous. They explain that he was just present... It seems to be said by Bo Hoistad http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/13/transcript-of-radio-interview-with-bo-hoistad-on-the-lugano-e-cat-test-we-want-lenr-fusione-fredda/ *Bo Höistad:* *“Of course we were very careful not to allow anything occult or hidden to happen, as a precaution. But the answer is no. We manipulated the ashes. Rossi was present, and he assisted in the operation.”* *Melis (or interviewer):* *“Did you choose the sample that was to be analyzed?”* *Bo Höistad:* *“Yes, of course. We picked the sample ourselves. But really, what can I say. In principle it is possible to fool anyone, if a person really has this gift.”.* *Melis (or interviewer):* *“In short, a magician or something.”* *Bo Höistad:* *“Exactly. But no, we don’t operate on that scale.”* note that the hypothesis of a general fraud is incoherent with the calorimetry protocol of Lugano, and despite the conspiracy theories, of Ferrara. the protocol allowed the physicist to install their own instruments, to check the wires, to touch the reactor, to instal thermocoupel, bolometers, IR cam, to calibrate at will... It is simply stupid to give so much control on the reactor if you give a faudulent device. Ithis is to oppose with the described unwillingness of DGT at Milano demo for ICCF18, to change the protocol. This is also different to the behavior of rossi in face of Steven Krivit who refused to change the protocol. I agree that unwillingness to accept change in instruments and protocol should raise doubt, but on the opposite abandoning control on a device is enough to prove honesty... this does not mean it is working, or well measured... but one can ruleout fraud. In that situation, fraud is eliminated, and only remain errors, failure, delusion incompetence. The secret of stage magic is to control the acts of the spectators. this is incompatible with letting them bring their instruments, touch the devices, rewire all. Whatever did the testers, they were free to do things that would reveal the tricks. the hypothesis of an error on effective emissivity, on the full spectrum, or in the IR cam bandwidth, is not to be ignored. there is nothing new and Michael McKubre raised the problems since long. the one of an upfront fraud in Lugano, and to a lesser degree in Ferrara is above what I could call extraordinary absurd in the sense of game theory, and stage magic. the clear honesty of the calorimetry protocol in Ferrara and Lugano, give good reason to eliminate the stage magic hypothesis for the isotopic shift. moreover the result is so extraordinary that a fraudster would avoid that extreme result which would and have raised skepticism. If you add the fact that Rossi did not took the ashes, this closes the speculations. Until Ferrara , the secrecy around Rossi was allowing some conspiracy theory, but now the open protocols, for Ferrara calorimetry, Lugano Calorimetry, Lugano isotopic analysis, this can be ruled out. You can add that a fraud would be an Industrial Heat act, involving Tom Darden, who have too much to loose in participating a fraud, and for who dumping IH is pocket money. If we accept experiments by Piantelli, Fralick, Nagel, Miley, and the whole LENR experimental results, E-cat have nothing extraordinary... it is just to be checked like the claim of any startup. 2015-03-07 16:26 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: *From:* *alain.coetm...@gmail.com* alain.coetm...@gmail.com Ø Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested. Ø non, the testers refuted that claim. he was watching, but did not operate No, Alain – you did not carefully read Levi’s own statement. Please read it for yourself: Levi stated specifically on PAGE 7 of the Official report that Rossi emptied the reactor. Here is the quote from Levi: “Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. “ That is very clear wording -directly from Levi himself. Rossi extracted the powder. This eliminates any real scientific possibility to assert that the powder tested was the same as the powder extracted – since pure isotope was seen in the sample tested, and Rossi had already admitting to having purchased pure isotope (Ni-62) – which was the major part of his Patent Application. This Patent Claim for Ni-62 gives Rossi plenty of motive- to alter (“salt”) the “powder charge extraction”. The claim of isotopic shifts is even less reliable than the excess heat claim.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Eric-- I have reservations as to the some of the statements for the following reasons: 1. I take emissivity to be the ratio of specific power (energy/unit area/unit time) of all EM radiation (photons)being emitted from a SURFACE of a body at thermal equilibrium (one that is at a constant surface temperature) to a similar body with similar EM emissions and at the same SURFACE temperature and that is a black body. Thus, emissivity for alumina will be different for different temperatures, and for sure Ni fuel and/or liquid AlLiH4 may be different than alumina itself. 2. I am not at all sure that the Lugano test was ever at thermal equilibrium, because I concluded it was controlled in its reaction rate by potentially changing conditions around a sweet spot of conditions. 3. I doubt that the thermal conductivity of alumina used in the test as well as the transmission of the spectrum of EM radiation being produced at the LENR reaction through the alumina to the outside surface is well known, particularly at 1400 degrees C. 4. At best the Optiris camera can determine a spectrum of radiation being emitted from a surface and from deeper levels away from a surface. Without calibration I do not understand how the camera can determine temperature of a surface. It may be able to tell something about how a measured spectrum of EM radiation approaches the S-B prediction for a black body. I doubt the camera is 100% effective at measuring all EM frequencies, particularly those which are soft x-rays and those at the sub-infrared levels. I doubt that the alumina acts as a black body for soft x-rays. The soft x-rays may be important and be directional rather than isotropic. In summary the data of most interest to me is how the surface temperature changes with time as a function of input electrical power. This would be the best indicator of energy production over and above the electrical input. However, even observed temperature changes at a surface should be understood and predictable with a validated thermal model with appropriate geometry, heat capacity, heat sinks, exothermal chemical reactions, heat transfer coeff's. etc. The Swedes, Levi, etal., may very well be working on such a model to supplement their conclusions about excess heat from the Lugano test. Their validation of such a model will be key. They should take their time and get it right. This type of analysis is what Dave Robertson and Gigi did for the Mizuno experiment and were able to make very consistent predictions of measured temperatures. This is what I would call good engineering and will be necessary to coming up with good theory. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 11:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Some recent experimental measurements by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP) highlighted a possible error in the Hot-Cat calorimetric measurement; the calorimetric measurement we are referring to is described in the document known as “TPR2” or Lugano Report. . . . Let me see if I can capture the growing consensus concerning the Lugano test: a.. The Lugano test reported an excess heat of 1.5 MWh over the course of a 32 day run of the HotCat. The excess heat was calculated using the output of an Optiris camera and an emissivity obtained using a single method. This emissivity was fed into the Stefan–Boltzmann formula to obtain a value for the radiated power. b.. The assumed emissivity was not adequately double-checked, e.g., using a thermocouple, a spot of refractory paint or a table of measured emissivities for various types of alumina. c.. There is reason to believe that the value that was used for the emissivity in the Lugano report was too low, leading the Stefan–Boltzmann formula to give a radiated power that was significantly higher than was actually seen in the experiment. d.. A lower radiated power, and, hence, temperature, would be consistent with other observations from the Lugano test, including a lack of failure of different components of the HotCat that might be expected at a temperature of 1400 C, which was reported by the authors. Does this capture the consensus? Does anyone disagree or have reservations about any of these statements? The authors of the Lugano test were largely the same as the ones that put together the initial third-party test for the E-Cat. Does the faulty analysis of the Lugano test cast doubt on the conclusions of the earlier test? What does all of this say about the odd suggestion that the core of the HotCat was so hot and bright that the heating elements cast a shadow? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2015 11:00 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Some recent experimental measurements by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP) highlighted a possible error in the Hot-Cat calorimetric measurement; the calorimetric measurement we are referring to is described in the document known as “TPR2” or Lugano Report. . . . Let me see if I can capture the growing consensus concerning the Lugano test: - The Lugano test reported an excess heat of 1.5 MWh over the course of a 32 day run of the HotCat. The excess heat was calculated using the output of an Optiris camera and an emissivity obtained using a single method. This emissivity was fed into the Stefan–Boltzmann formula to obtain a value for the radiated power. - The assumed emissivity was not adequately double-checked, e.g., using a thermocouple, a spot of refractory paint or a table of measured emissivities for various types of alumina. - There is reason to believe that the value that was used for the emissivity in the Lugano report was too low, leading the Stefan–Boltzmann formula to give a radiated power that was significantly higher than was actually seen in the experiment. - A lower radiated power, and, hence, temperature, would be consistent with other observations from the Lugano test, including a lack of failure of different components of the HotCat that might be expected at a temperature of 1400 C, which was reported by the authors. Does this capture the consensus? Does anyone disagree or have reservations about any of these statements? The authors of the Lugano test were largely the same as the ones that put together the initial third-party test for the E-Cat. Does the faulty analysis of the Lugano test cast doubt on the conclusions of the earlier test? What does all of this say about the odd suggestion that the core of the HotCat was so hot and bright that the heating elements cast a shadow? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Does the faulty analysis of the Lugano test cast doubt on the conclusions of the earlier test? Only insofar as it casts doubt on the competence of the researchers. They did not make any of these serious mistakes in the first tests. I cannot imagine why they did not use a thermocouple to calibrate the Lugano tests. Perhaps they did. I doubt it, though. They did not mention using one in the description. I asked them if they did, but they never responded. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com * Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested. * non, the testers refuted that claim. he was watching, but did not operate No, Alain – you did not carefully read Levi’s own statement. Please read it for yourself: Levi stated specifically on PAGE 7 of the Official report that Rossi emptied the reactor. Here is the quote from Levi: “Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. “ That is very clear wording -directly from Levi himself. Rossi extracted the powder. This eliminates any real scientific possibility to assert that the powder tested was the same as the powder extracted – since pure isotope was seen in the sample tested, and Rossi had already admitting to having purchased pure isotope (Ni-62) – which was the major part of his Patent Application. This Patent Claim for Ni-62 gives Rossi plenty of motive- to alter (“salt”) the “powder charge extraction”. The claim of isotopic shifts is even less reliable than the excess heat claim.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
https://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/probability-now-9/ Have fun everyone, it's been a blast. On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* *alain.coetm...@gmail.com* alain.coetm...@gmail.com Ø Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested. Ø non, the testers refuted that claim. he was watching, but did not operate No, Alain – you did not carefully read Levi’s own statement. Please read it for yourself: Levi stated specifically on PAGE 7 of the Official report that Rossi emptied the reactor. Here is the quote from Levi: “Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. “ That is very clear wording -directly from Levi himself. Rossi extracted the powder. This eliminates any real scientific possibility to assert that the powder tested was the same as the powder extracted – since pure isotope was seen in the sample tested, and Rossi had already admitting to having purchased pure isotope (Ni-62) – which was the major part of his Patent Application. This Patent Claim for Ni-62 gives Rossi plenty of motive- to alter (“salt”) the “powder charge extraction”. The claim of isotopic shifts is even less reliable than the excess heat claim.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested. non, the testers refuted that calim. he was watching, but did not operate 2015-03-07 1:45 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: *From:* Bob Cook Jones-- What about Levi's Ni isotopic changes? Does your 1COP2 fit with those observations, which seem to suggest more than your f/H idea? Or were both of Levi's isotopic analyses incorrect as well? Bob, Well - the analyses were correct, insofar as you do not look deeper. However, I am fully convinced that there were no real isotopic changes. Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested. Enough said.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
this does not change the fact that Industrial Heat gave a reactor with freedom to test anything on it. This happened also in Ferrara. this alone rule out fraud. once you rule out fraud on the calorimetry, you know that at least IH think it's reactor works. The hypothesis og isotope manipulation is not credible, both because it was too much to look real (really challenging), and because it is not important compared to the calorimetry now that the physicist made mistake or that the reactor was not hot enough or was broken is another story... clearly possible. what give me hope is that the calibration at 450C matched the model, ruling out the 0.90 emissivity theory... 2015-03-07 19:43 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com Ø the statement I refer to were not in the report, but were specific answer given later. Yes that is a major problem – a recollection coming months later from the memory of an embarrassed scientist who had already been caught napping on the job – is essentially not worth very much, comparatively. Ø Ø in fact the statement in the report was ambiguous. Sorry, but there is nothing ambiguous in Levi stating that Rossi intervened remove the powder charge. How much clearer can one get? … and this is the official report – not an exculpatory memory coming months later. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/tpr2-calorimetry-of-hot-cat-performed-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/ See also: https://docs.google.com/a/node.io/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Zl9FWDFWSUpXc0U/edit http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/08/alumina-emissivity-and-the-lugano-e-cat-test-bob-higgins/ It seems Bob Higgins was studying the emissivity question at the same time as the GSVIT folks and came to a similar conclusion. From his paper: I.E. the radiant power is estimated to be approximately 47% lower than the value calculated by the Lugano experimenters for A. Rossi’s reactor. However, the actual power may prove to be higher with proper accounting for the emission of the heater coil in transmission through the alumina below 4 μm. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
This experiment was never independent and there never was freedom to test samples without permission. Fraud cannot be ruled out. The only good thing that came out of it was Parkhomov’s experiment and others in progress which we will hear more about soon. Patience, Peter, patience. Rossi had control of the fuel on both loading and unloading. Levi says this specifically. No testing was done without Rossi first handing the samples, and providing the samples to testers and agreeing to the test. Since Rossi was in control at the critical points – the fraud issue revolves around his honesty. Any scientific appraisal of the Lugano report must weigh the issue of personal integrity and motivation to deceive, which as you say – is rather obvious. From: torulf.gr...@bredband.net There are still a possible fraud in isotopes in purpose to mislead competitors. Alain Sepeda wrote: this does not change the fact that Industrial Heat gave a reactor with freedom to test anything on it. This happened also in Ferrara. this alone rule out fraud.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
There are still a possible fraud in isotopes in purpose to mislead competitors. On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 21:46:45 +0100, Alain Sepeda wrote: this does not change the fact that Industrial Heat gave a reactor with freedom to test anything on it. This happened also in Ferrara. this alone rule out fraud. once you rule out fraud on the calorimetry, you know that at least IH think it's reactor works. The hypothesis og isotope manipulation is not credible, both because it was too much to look real (really challenging), and because it is not important compared to the calorimetry now that the physicist made mistake or that the reactor was not hot enough or was broken is another story... clearly possible. what give me hope is that the calibration at 450C matched the model, ruling out the 0.90 emissivity theory... 2015-03-07 19:43 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene : FROM: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [2] Ø the statement I refer to were not in the report, but were specific answer given later. Yes that is a major problem - a recollection coming months later from the memory of an embarrassed scientist who had already been caught napping on the job - is essentially not worth very much, comparatively. Ø Ø in fact the statement in the report was ambiguous. Sorry, but there is nothing ambiguous in Levi stating that Rossi intervened remove the powder charge. How much clearer can one get? … and this is the official report - not an exculpatory memory coming months later. Jones Links: -- [1] mailto:jone...@pacbell.net [2] mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Since Rossi was in control at the critical points – the fraud issue revolves around his honesty. What you say is true. But in applying this standard, it seems we are going well beyond the kind of protocol that academic scientists would apply to themselves. We are using a standard that one would use with someone who cannot be trusted. We are not using a standard that would be used between academic colleagues in order to maintain scientific independence. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Post by MFMP: https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/934143689949664 On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Great post by MFMP: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Bob Cook Jones-- What about Levi's Ni isotopic changes? Does your 1COP2 fit with those observations, which seem to suggest more than your f/H idea? Or were both of Levi's isotopic analyses incorrect as well? Bob, Well - the analyses were correct, insofar as you do not look deeper. However, I am fully convinced that there were no real isotopic changes. Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested. Enough said.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Great post by MFMP: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Bob Cook Jones-- What about Levi's Ni isotopic changes? Does your 1COP2 fit with those observations, which seem to suggest more than your f/H idea? Or were both of Levi's isotopic analyses incorrect as well? Bob, Well - the analyses were correct, insofar as you do not look deeper. However, I am fully convinced that there were no real isotopic changes. Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested. Enough said.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
conception = consumption On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The way to maximize the COP is to apply energy pumping (heat) for a short a period as possible to minimize energy input conception. The Lagano test did not do that. The testers applied heat all the time. That is like running your car in first gear. Your gas milage will be very bad. On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:38 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Jones, I had speculated earlier that the COP of the Hot Cat might be lower than the regular E-Cat as the low temperature version is what Rossi has pursued. As Rossi has claimed a COP of at least 6 in earler days it is not a stretch to think that he is expecting 6 from the new 1 MW plant under test. It is hard to imagine they would not have worked on a single module before assembling ~100 of them and that they would do so with a COP of only 2.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Another kind, sort of, good news it is that the temperature is below the melting point of nickel. So, we don't have another factor to make things worse.
RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Adrian, With a COP of 2 in any single unit - it is possible using stacking and feedback of many units – for the operator to achieve any arbitrarily high net COP – even infinite COP (no input required). For instance with 50 units in a module, none of which have a COP of greater than 2, one can arrange them to have infinite effective COP. That would be the case so long as one can trigger another unit using heat alone. Even if heat alone is not possible, a much higher COP than 2 is possible using multiple units. This is the essence of the MW “blue box” and the only reason that you will probably never see individual units for sale. The multi-unit arrangement allows one to convert low COP in an individual unit - to high effective COP using feedback of part of the gain. From: a.ashfield Jones, I had speculated earlier that the COP of the Hot Cat might be lower than the regular E-Cat as the low temperature version is what Rossi has pursued. As Rossi has claimed a COP of at least 6 in earler days it is not a stretch to think that he is expecting 6 from the new 1 MW plant under test. It is hard to imagine they would not have worked on a single module before assembling ~100 of them and that they would do so with a COP of only 2.
RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Jones, I had speculated earlier that the COP of the Hot Cat might be lower than the regular E-Cat as the low temperature version is what Rossi has pursued. As Rossi has claimed a COP of at least 6 in earler days it is not a stretch to think that he is expecting 6 from the new 1 MW plant under test. It is hard to imagine they would not have worked on a single module before assembling ~100 of them and that they would do so with a COP of only 2.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experimentJones-- What about Levi's Ni isotopic changes? Does your 1COP2 fit with those observations, which seem to suggest more than your f/H idea? Or were both of Levi's isotopic analyses incorrect as well? Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 1:38 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment From: Jed Rothwell Ø https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/tpr2-calorimetry-of-hot-cat-performed-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/ TPR2 – Calorimetry of Hot-Cat performed by means of IR camera -- Conclusions: The MFMP experimental data are in agreement with those reported in the literature and confirm that the procedure and the Emissivity values used by [Levi] for measurements by the thermal imager, are incorrect… This kind of error can lead to a significant overestimation of the surface temperature and to an overestimation of thermal Power by a factor 2 or more. Commentary: Yes, there was significant overestimation of gain by Levi – just as many of us predicted months ago, due to the emissivity error… yet, even so - there is still the possibility of modest gain in the range of COP = 1.5. However, no one can claim gain here, least of all Levi - since the error was severe, but it seems unlikely that there was no gain, based simply on dozens of prior results going back to 1990. If so, then Rossi’s HT result, like his wet steam result, is now in keeping with what can be called “the new normal” for Li-H reactions going back 24 years. https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg72857.html To cut to the chase, the new normal is 1 COP 2 … which is non-nuclear thermal gain, and probably related to fractional hydrogen f/H. Many well-done Ni-H experiments, from these researchers have this same modest level of COP going back to 1990: 1) Thermacore 2) Mills/BLP 3) Niedra 4) Noninski 5) Haldeman (MIT) 6) Focardi 7) Celani 8) Piantelli 9) Ahern 10) Kitamura 11) Takahashi 12) Cravens, and many others The good news is that there is real thermal gain in Ni-H - which does violate CoE … but the bad news (or the not-so-bad news, depending…) it is low level gain - remarkably consistent long-term low level gain. In other words, the new normal for LENR appears to be 1 COP 2 Which still will deliver a terrible blow to mainstream physics… if and when all of the pieces fall into place.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
The way to maximize the COP is to apply energy pumping (heat) for a short a period as possible to minimize energy input conception. The Lagano test did not do that. The testers applied heat all the time. That is like running your car in first gear. Your gas milage will be very bad. On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:38 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Jones, I had speculated earlier that the COP of the Hot Cat might be lower than the regular E-Cat as the low temperature version is what Rossi has pursued. As Rossi has claimed a COP of at least 6 in earler days it is not a stretch to think that he is expecting 6 from the new 1 MW plant under test. It is hard to imagine they would not have worked on a single module before assembling ~100 of them and that they would do so with a COP of only 2.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experimentJones-- Do you know of any easy way to make the isotopic ratios that Levi says he found. If they are correct, however they were created was a pretty significant feat IMHO. I wonder what the Swedes are getting to say about the reality of the suggested Ni isotopic concentrations that were observed in the Lugano test ash. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 4:45 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment From: Bob Cook Jones-- What about Levi's Ni isotopic changes? Does your 1COP2 fit with those observations, which seem to suggest more than your f/H idea? Or were both of Levi's isotopic analyses incorrect as well? Bob, Well - the analyses were correct, insofar as you do not look deeper. However, I am fully convinced that there were no real isotopic changes. Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested. Enough said.
RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
From: Bob Cook Jones-- What about Levi's Ni isotopic changes? Does your 1COP2 fit with those observations, which seem to suggest more than your f/H idea? Or were both of Levi's isotopic analyses incorrect as well? Bob, Well - the analyses were correct, insofar as you do not look deeper. However, I am fully convinced that there were no real isotopic changes. Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested. Enough said.
RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
From: Jed Rothwell * https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/tpr2-calorimetry-of-hot-cat-performed-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/ TPR2 – Calorimetry of Hot-Cat performed by means of IR camera -- Conclusions: The MFMP experimental data are in agreement with those reported in the literature and confirm that the procedure and the Emissivity values used by [Levi] for measurements by the thermal imager, are incorrect… This kind of error can lead to a significant overestimation of the surface temperature and to an overestimation of thermal Power by a factor 2 or more. Commentary: Yes, there was significant overestimation of gain by Levi – just as many of us predicted months ago, due to the emissivity error… yet, even so - there is still the possibility of modest gain in the range of COP = 1.5. However, no one can claim gain here, least of all Levi - since the error was severe, but it seems unlikely that there was no gain, based simply on dozens of prior results going back to 1990. If so, then Rossi’s HT result, like his wet steam result, is now in keeping with what can be called “the new normal” for Li-H reactions going back 24 years. https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg72857.html To cut to the chase, the new normal is 1 COP 2 … which is non-nuclear thermal gain, and probably related to fractional hydrogen f/H. Many well-done Ni-H experiments, from these researchers have this same modest level of COP going back to 1990: 1) Thermacore 2) Mills/BLP 3) Niedra 4) Noninski 5) Haldeman (MIT) 6) Focardi 7) Celani 8) Piantelli 9) Ahern 10) Kitamura 11) Takahashi 12) Cravens, and many others The good news is that there is real thermal gain in Ni-H - which does violate CoE … but the bad news (or the not-so-bad news, depending…) it is low level gain - remarkably consistent long-term low level gain. In other words, the new normal for LENR appears to be 1 COP 2 Which still will deliver a terrible blow to mainstream physics… if and when all of the pieces fall into place.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Some recent experimental measurements by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP) highlighted a possible error in the Hot-Cat calorimetric measurement; the calorimetric measurement we are referring to is described in the document known as “TPR2” or Lugano Report. . . . Let me see if I can capture the growing consensus concerning the Lugano test: - The Lugano test reported an excess heat of 1.5 MWh over the course of a 32 day run of the HotCat. The excess heat was calculated using the output of an Optiris camera and an emissivity obtained using a single method. This emissivity was fed into the Stefan–Boltzmann formula to obtain a value for the radiated power. - The assumed emissivity was not adequately double-checked, e.g., using a thermocouple, a spot of refractory paint or a table of measured emissivities for various types of alumina. - There is reason to believe that the value that was used for the emissivity in the Lugano report was too low, leading the Stefan–Boltzmann formula to give a radiated power that was significantly higher than was actually seen in the experiment. - A lower radiated power, and, hence, temperature, would be consistent with other observations from the Lugano test, including a lack of failure of different components of the HotCat that might be expected at a temperature of 1400 C, which was reported by the authors. Does this capture the consensus? Does anyone disagree or have reservations about any of these statements? The authors of the Lugano test were largely the same as the ones that put together the initial third-party test for the E-Cat. Does the faulty analysis of the Lugano test cast doubt on the conclusions of the earlier test? What does all of this say about the odd suggestion that the core of the HotCat was so hot and bright that the heating elements cast a shadow? Eric
