subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:Detailed exposed of the e\-cat scam."

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:


 This is true that the Rossi's effect is trivial to demonstrate
 unconditionally. But this is also the reason, that Rossi has not had
 any interests to provide conclusive evidence to the public.



Speculation about reverse psychology and mind games are pointless. If you
agree that Rossi has not proved his claims, then I can't see why you would
accept them.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

  This is a problem because of powder is expensive and difficult to
 fabricate.


Not according to Rossi, who says it is easy to fabricate, and the cost is
negligible.



 It is also a problem because after you contaminate it, you could not
 produce heat from it. You would have to produce heat first, then do your
 destructive blank run.


Or use two ecats. Then of course you'd need someone independent to select
which one to use for the blank run.


 This is like demanding that Mr. Ford first demonstrate that his Model T
 can drive at 40 mph, then he must demonstrate that when you crash it into a
 brick wall at 40 mph, it is destroyed and cannot drive at any speed after
 that.


How on earth is it like that? Your analogies become lamer all the time.


 As Valconen pointed out, there is no technical justification for a blank
 run, and it would be trivial to falsify. It does not improve the
 reliability or reduce the probability of a hoax.


A well-planned blank run would resolve controversy, which non-sensical or
not, is clearly present. And it wouldn't have to take longer, since it
could be done in parallel.

If the blank ecat was chosen at random by an independent observer, and
Rossi were kept at a distance, it would not be that easy to falsify.


 Regarding the title of this thread, Krivit (and Yugo too, I think) claim
 it is possible to commit fraud with an escrow agreement [...]


I don't think you paid attention. Customer fraud was not suggested;
investor fraud was. Rossi asked for money from NASA without an escrow. He
didn't get it, but that still indicates his motivation. Scams can fail
sometimes too.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:


 The trouble is that H2(gas)+Ni(powder) reacts exothermically, as the
 hydrogen is adsorbed onto the nickel.


This is true, and it means that the run would still have to be long enough
to account for this. But this should be rather easier to do, because it
would involve only the hydrogen injected, whereas excluding other chemical
reactions means considering the entire mass and volume of the ecat.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mary Yugo wrote:

   If so, the entire scientific community must be incredibly obstinate or
 the proof for cold fusion isn't very good or some combination of both.


 It is entirely the first. That is true of all other examples in which the
 scientific establishment rejected claims for years or decades.


There are very few phenomena identified in small-scale (bench top)
experiments at ordinary conditions (like cold fusion) in which the
fundamental principle was rejected by the scientific community for decades,
and was eventually vindicated. All the examples you repeatedly trot out
don't fit this at all.


 You can find hundreds of examples; this sort of thing happens all the
 time.


And yet, Edmund Storms has said that the treatment of cold fusion (assuming
it is real) is unprecedented in the history of science.

It doesn't happen all the time. People were skeptical of the Wrights and of
the practicality of flight, but the scientific community was not skeptical
of the principle. People were skeptical of the practicality of light bulbs,
but not the principle. People were skeptical of the principle of the laser,
but only a few, and only for a short time.


The quality of the proof is never an issue.


It is always an issue. Of course there is a certain inertia, but the better
the proof, the more quickly it is accepted. Look at high temperature
superconductivity. It was not understood theoretically, but accepted
instantly, because the Meissner effect is pretty good evidence.


 The proof of cold fusion is better than the proof of countless other
 claims that were instantly accepted.


That's just wrong. The proof of cold fusion is absent. And it is not a
subtle thing to prove heat at the claimed levels, and yet in 22 years, no
one has been able to do it.


 As I said, the only metric that counts is money. Academic funding: money
 and power.


Not true. In spite of the opposition to cold fusion, it has had about 200 M
in funding. For an experiment that simple, proof-of-principle should not
require 1% of that.

PF first claim was done on a shoe-string, probably less than 100k. After
1989, they were given tens of millions, and their own institute. But the
evidence did not get any better.

People oppose cold fusion because their salaries depend upon opposing it.


If this were true at all, it would be true of a tiny number of people, and
not true of the most famous opposers of cold fusion like Nathan Lewis,
Steven Koonin, Seaborg, Park, the entire DOE panels, etc.

And even for those who are working on hot fusion, it's not like the
academics would lose their jobs if cold fusion were right. Academics can
simply switch to a new field. It seems like cold fusion could use some good
people.

But the vast majority of physicists, even nuclear physicists, do not have
salaries that depend on cold fusion failing. They would be more than
delighted to be part of a revolution in physics, which would not only
benefit everyone on the planet, but also could win them a Nobel prize, and
the respect and adoration of all humankind. Next to that, a bit of
obstinacy would not stand a chance.



   Or maybe cold fusion has yet to be properly demonstrated and the sincere
 researchers are looking at errors and noise.


 You can only believe that if you refuse to look at the data, or if you do
 not understand the concepts of errors and noise. You have convince yourself
 that experts cannot measure 20 W output with no input. That's a lot like
 saying a doctor cannot be sure if a decapitated a patient is alive or dead.


The thing about a decapitated patient is that anyone can tell that he's
dead without reading literature or looking at a lot of data. No need for a
doctor, no need for an EKG, or a brain scan. (A better analogy this time,
by the way.)

Same thing for 20 W of power. If a cold fusion device can produce it
without input, and if it keeps going for a time consistent with billions of
joules per gram of material, then you can show it to anyone. And they will
accept it without having to read 1000 papers.

That's the problem with cold fusion. If the claims had merit, an
unequivocal demonstration would be easy, but there just isn't one.




 Experts such as Heinz Gerischer who looked that the results in 1990 were
 instantly convinced. They did not have the slightest doubt the results are
 real.


Experts such as Koonin and Lewis and the DOE panels who looked at the
results in 1989 and 2004 judged that there was no conclusive evidence for
cold fusion.



 Every expert who has looked at these results carefully says it is real,
 except Britz.


Only by your own definition of carefully, which is if they agree with
me.



 Some of the 2004 DoE panel members who spent a few hours looking at it in
 parlor game style review were not convinced, but the reasons they gave for
 doubting it were ludicrous.


Oh, so experts who look at the results unanimously say it's

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:

 **


 On 11-11-16 05:32 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:



 On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:

 There are actually some technical difficulties with a blank run in the
 Rossi E-cat.

 Wet cold fusion researchers sometimes have used H2O in a blank run, and
 compared evolved heat using D2O with the blank output.  If the D2O produces
 a heat measurement value higher than the H2O then they can conclude, with
 good certainty, that something interesting happened.  That sort of yes/no
 blank comparison run is harder to arrange for the E-Cat.

 The trouble is that H2(gas)+Ni(powder) reacts exothermically, as the
 hydrogen is adsorbed onto the nickel.  This means that a blank run using,
 say, nitrogen in place of hydrogen can be expected to produce *less*
 *measured* *heat* than the H2 run, even if there's no new chemistry or
 physics taking place in the loaded E-Cat.  And that leaves you right back
 where you started, trying to do precise calorimetry on the loaded run to
 determine exactly how much excess heat was produced, and comparing it
 with a theoretical value for heat of adsorption.


 I don't really see an exothermic reaction with hydrogen as a problem.  The
 error would be in favor of Rossi and I am happy to accept it if (and only
 if) he runs so long that it's accounted for...


 Oh get real.  You just made my point -- the blank and non-blank runs must
 run long enough so the excess due to adsorption is accounted for -- as
 I said, we're right back to square 1, arguing over the calorimetry.

 As I said, it's not a yes/no test -- yes, the signature is higher than the
 blank, or no, it's not.


You have a point, but 2 things: (1) The blank run will also serve as a
calibration, so it will be easier to quantify the excess in the non-blank
run. (2) The amount of excess due to the added hydrogen will be much less
than the amount that has to be considered from hidden fuel inside a 100 kg
device. So, it's not just which is higher, but it would still be easier to
read.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 Just out of curiosity, do I need to keep arguing in favor of calibration
 with a blank?  Is there anyone else who doesn't get why it's desirable?
 Even essential?  I understand a blank may not be perfect because of the
 hydrogen issue and I understand there are other reasons the demo may be
 faked but the simple test I propose would remove a lot of not all of the
 uncertainty about the output heat measurement.


I can certainly see the value of it, but I'm a little less enamored of it
than you. It seems to me that if we got Rossi's cooperation to the point
that he would do a blank run in a transparent and reliable way, then we
could also get him to do the experiment in a way that would make it
unnecessary.

The claimed power levels really are easy to demonstrate, and temperatures
are not difficult to measure. The two controversies about steam and
thermocouple placement could be resolved by not using steam (as in the 18 h
run), and by placing the temperature probes in the water. Then if there
were no input power, and it ran long enough to exclude energy storage or
chemical reactions, it would be a pretty good demo.

I agree, some questions of storage and chemistry could be answered more
quickly by comparing to a blank run, but I probably would want to see the
output exceed the weight of the entire device in chemical energy to really
be sure anyway. And with the claimed energy density, it should be easy,
even if it might take some time.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

2011-11-17 Thread Alan J Fletcher


At 02:40 AM 11/17/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
Or use two ecats. Then of course you'd need someone independent to 
select which one to use for the blank run.


Solves nothing.  In fact, nor does my proposed protocol.

Rossi just turns on the fakium for the live run, and leaves it off 
for the blank run.


ps : I've always supported the position that the excess power * run 
time must be long enough to eliminate all possible fakes, and have no 
problem with anyone who insists that is required for absolute proof.


But that's not to say that anything less than that is proof of 
failure, or that no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from 
incomplete, inconsistent or even faulty data. (Was that a triple 
negative?).  Meaningful conclusions can be drawn from incomplete, 
inconsistent or even faulty data.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

2011-11-17 Thread Mary Yugo

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 Just out of curiosity, do I need to keep arguing in favor of calibration
 with a blank?  Is there anyone else who doesn't get why it's desirable?
 Even essential?  I understand a blank may not be perfect because of the
 hydrogen issue and I understand there are other reasons the demo may be
 faked but the simple test I propose would remove a lot of not all of the
 uncertainty about the output heat measurement.


 I can certainly see the value of it, but I'm a little less enamored of it
 than you.


Oh, you're absolutely right.  I am only enamored of the blank business
because it will stop the interminable niggling about thermocouple
placements, screwing around with the measuring instruments, problems with
the heat exchanger (Oct 6) and most of all, the use of the heat of
vaporization of steam as a measurement method for the enthalpy (all except
the October tests and maybe Levi's).   Nobody is going to win that battle
by continuing to do things the same way.  Running a blank breaks it up a
bit and would change the game.  It would make it more difficult (but still
not impossible) to fake the results.

I am much more in favor of running VERY VERY long times and producing a
great deal of energy -- far more than what could be gotten from burning all
that is in the hydrogen cylinder or anything which could conceivably be
stored in the device.  I am in favor of running it with no power
connection.  I am in favor of running it out in the desert on a glass
table.  And most of all, I am in favor of it being tested independently by
a renown university physics department officially or by a large well knows
laboratory independent of Rossi.   Any of those would be much better.

I keep pushing blanks and calibration because so many people seem willing
to keep playing Rossi's lame game of changing the methodology and the
equipment each time to no purpose in terms of proving the technology exists.

One more minor point about the blank.  I just remembered that the amount of
hydrogen Rossi claims is required for relatively short tests is negligible
in terms of heat of adsorption or reaction with nickel -- it's around a
gram if I recall correctly.  So it would be unlikely to affect a blank
determination to any significant degree if that matters to anyone.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 At 02:40 AM 11/17/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:

 Or use two ecats. Then of course you'd need someone independent to select
 which one to use for the blank run.


 Solves nothing.  In fact, nor does my proposed protocol.

 Rossi just turns on the fakium for the live run, and leaves it off for
 the blank run.


Well, if Rossi is made to keep his distance, that would be difficult. And
even if he did turn on the fakium in the live run, at least it would be
easier to quantify the fakium output. You could for example turn up the
electric heater to give the same output from the blank run as you get from
the live run, and then you'd know what energy input is needed to produce
the observed result.


ps : I've always supported the position that the excess power * run time
 must be long enough to eliminate all possible fakes, and have no problem
 with anyone who insists that is required for absolute proof.

 But that's not to say that anything less than that is proof of failure,


Absolutely true. No one is claiming to have proof that Rossi does not have
nuclear reactions. Only that nuclear reactions are not necessary to explain
the observations. And to many, the default position on heat from nuclear
reactions under these conditions is skepticism, until the evidence is
unequivocal. Especially since unequivocal evidence should be easy to
provide.



   Meaningful conclusions can be drawn from incomplete, inconsistent or
 even faulty data.


Maybe in some cases, but I don't think anything meaningful can be gleaned
from Rossi's demos.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

2011-11-17 Thread Jed Rothwell

Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:

One more minor point about the blank.  I just remembered that the amount of
 hydrogen Rossi claims is required for relatively short tests is negligible
 in terms of heat of adsorption or reaction with nickel -- it's around a
 gram if I recall correctly.  So it would be unlikely to affect a blank
 determination to any significant degree if that matters to anyone.


Perhaps you miss the point about the hydrogen. It has to be completely
removed from the Ni or you may get a cold fusion reaction. It will not be
blank.

It is difficult to remove all the hydrogen.

If you are going to do a blank it is better to use virgin Ni in
a vacuum that has never had H in it.

If someone feels the need to do a comparison, it would be easier to use a
joule heater rather than any kind of blank cell.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

2011-11-17 Thread Mary Yugo

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:

 One more minor point about the blank.  I just remembered that the amount
 of hydrogen Rossi claims is required for relatively short tests is
 negligible in terms of heat of adsorption or reaction with nickel -- it's
 around a gram if I recall correctly.  So it would be unlikely to affect a
 blank determination to any significant degree if that matters to anyone.


 Perhaps you miss the point about the hydrogen. It has to be completely
 removed from the Ni or you may get a cold fusion reaction. It will not be
 blank.


Let's see if that's true.  I doubt it.  It's easily tested.



 It is difficult to remove all the hydrogen.

 If you are going to do a blank it is better to use virgin Ni in
 a vacuum that has never had H in it.


How about a brand new E-cat?  It will be innocent of hydrogen.  There's not
a lot of hydrogen in room air.


 If someone feels the need to do a comparison, it would be easier to use a
 joule heater rather than any kind of blank cell.


I very much doubt that anyone will persuade Rossi to do any sort of blank
test so this is pretty academic at this point.  It would have been nice if
Rossi's nose had been rubbed liberally in the idea long before now.  Maybe
you did that and if so, good try.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

Interesting, after Krivit's first travel report Rossi immediately
attacked Krivit and labelled him as a Snake, although his report was
not that particularly harsh. I think Rossi was far more insightful
considering the true nature of Krivit than what we might have been
thought. I think it was not just a random burst from an angry man, but
there was more to that, because Krivit has lost rationality from his
criticism for a long time ago.

Anyway, it will be very interesting history written when all the
background connections are exposed and investigated. I would say that
poor Steven the Snake...

–Jouni


2011/11/16 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com:
 According to Krivit:
 http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/12/swedish-public-radio-turns-spotlight-on-lewan-and-ny-teknik/#comments
 Steven B. Krivit says:
 November 15, 2011 at 08:57

 . . .

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:34 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:

 Anyway, it will be very interesting history written when all the
 background connections are exposed and investigated. I would say that
 poor Steven the Snake...



What do you find wrong with Krivit's summary?

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

2011-11-16 Thread Rich Murray

good question, Mary !

Any proof for: All we know is that after the Oct. 28 show, the shipping
container with the 50 Fat-Cats was hauled away on a truck. ?

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:34 AM, Jouni Valkonen 
 jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:

 Anyway, it will be very interesting history written when all the
 background connections are exposed and investigated. I would say that
 poor Steven the Snake...



 What do you find wrong with Krivit's summary?

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

2011-11-16 Thread Joshua Cude

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:



 Anyway, it will be very interesting history written when all the
 background connections are exposed and investigated. I would say that
 poor Steven the Snake...




If Rossi prevails, Krivit will certainly look bad, and so will the entire
scientific establishment.

On the other hand, in the more likely scenario that Rossi fizzles (probably
over a long period), Krivit will come up roses. He will become the go-to
guy for all claims of cold fusion, as one of the few apparently rational
cold fusion advocates. He will assume the throne as king of cold fusion.
And then he will become insufferable with his promotion of Widom Larsen.
That will be a worse scenario than the first. Unfortunately it's more
likely.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

Steven the Snake wrote:
 1. Rossi has publicly told all his fans that he will not ask for money until 
 he has a
 product for sale. 2. They believed him and propagated this information 
 widely but it is not true.

This is false. Rossi has refused to take money from investor and
private persons. Ampenergo was wholly different story. And we do not
have any details about that, because Ampenergo's relationship with
Rossi is unclear. Because of this blunder from the Snake, there is not
much relevance for the rest, of his fighting against the windmills.


 4. Rossi asked an engineer at NASA on July 22, 2011, for $15 million to 
 “test” his
 device. NASA did not pay Rossi anything.

Should have paid. And also it was to be deposed in escrow account. Not
for Rossi. Money goes only for Rossi, is demonstration leads into
contract.


 4. Rossi asked Defkalion to give him money by Aug. 1, 2011. Defkalion did not 
 pay
 Rossi anything. Rossi himself is the source.

Rossi has always willing to do contracts with partners. Doing
contracts for production has nothing to do with collecting money from
private entities and investors.

 There is no evidence that Rossi has sold any product to any customer. All we 
 know is
 that after the Oct. 28 show, the shipping container with the 50 Fat-Cats was 
 hauled
 away on a truck. The only evidence that exists suggests that Rossi is playing 
 a
 game. Don’t forget the redacted “For the Customer” detail on the Oct. 28 
 technical
 report that Rossi put on his Web site.
Here Krivit got the premise right, but failed with the conclusion.
That is his conclusion does not follow from the premise.

 After the Oct. 28 show, Rossi helped to propagate the rumor that he sold it to
 SPAWAR. When that rumor was disproved, Rossi helped to propagate the rumor 
 that
 he sold it to National Instruments. Now that has been disproved too.
This is nuts assertions and only shows how little ability Krivit has
for objective and critical thinking.


 Rossi has promised his grand public demonstration for 10 months now. If Rossi 
 didn’t
 have what he had claimed since Feb. 2010, as I believe is the case, what else 
 could  Rossi do for an exit strategy? Blame MIBs or Big Oil for suppressing 
 his device? And
 would this explain why Rossi kept trying, time after time, 12 times in a row, 
 but never
 achieved a convincing demo? Perhaps MIBs or Big Oil interfered with every one 
 of the
 12 tests!
Krivit has lost with counting. There has been tests in Dec, Jan,
March, 2×April, July, 3×Sep, 2×Oct.

Then there was that 18h test by Levi, Bianchini and Passerini, but it
should not be counted as a test, because it showed a success.
Therefore it must be just fabricated and in reality it never happened.


 The hard part for everybody who joined in the promotion and cheerleading for 
 Rossi is
 that they neglected to consider the importance of science, the scientific 
 method and
 scientific protocol.

Krivit does not even understand basics about scientific method,
because he is requiring control experiments for experiments where
there is only one variable to be measured. Controls are only for
multiple variable studies.


 But New Energy Times did — the moment we went to meet Rossi and see his 
 device.  And then we published — months ago.
June test had zero relevance, because there was no measurements
done. It was just presentation of old model of E-Cat. Therefore, what
NET did with the 200 page report, was just wasting of time. It did not
provide not even single relevant proof against Rossi, but it was just
filled with speculations and misunderstandings what steam quality
means. Instead of facts, it contained mostly silly speculations and
accusations, without any rational basis.

What is most annoying with Krivit, that he has fixed his position
without objective evidence. If evidence to support the claim is not
adequate, then it does not follow that the claim is false. But as I
mentioned that Krivit is concluding, from the inconclusive evidence,
that Rossi is a fraudster and criminal.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.


 If Rossi prevails, Krivit will certainly look bad, and so will the entire
 scientific establishment.


I disagree.  With the present evidence, there is every reason to be
skeptical of Rossi.  And Krivit is responding properly to the facts
presented to him.  If Rossi's claims are real, he's done the worst possible
job of presenting them credibly.  And it's not difficult to do it credibly.


 On the other hand, in the more likely scenario that Rossi fizzles
 (probably over a long period), Krivit will come up roses. He will become
 the go-to guy for all claims of cold fusion, as one of the few apparently
 rational cold fusion advocates. He will assume the throne as king of cold
 fusion. And then he will become insufferable with his promotion of Widom
 Larsen. That will be a worse scenario than the first. Unfortunately it's
 more likely.


The same criteria apply to any theory Krivit favors as they do to Rossi's.
If Krivit doesn't have the goods, there will be skeptical comments about
his claims as well.  This should be about evidence and not beliefs.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:

 Steven the Snake wrote:
  1. Rossi has publicly told all his fans that he will not ask for money
 until he has a
  product for sale. 2. They believed him and propagated this information
 widely but it is not true.

 This is false. Rossi has refused to take money from investor and
 private persons. Ampenergo was wholly different story. And we do not
 have any details about that, because Ampenergo's relationship with
 Rossi is unclear. Because of this blunder from the Snake, there is not
 much relevance for the rest, of his fighting against the windmills.



This is pretty clear -- Rossi got a substantial sum from Ampenergo --or so
they said.
I tire of reposting it all the time because some people can't remember it:

*How much do you pay for the agreement?*

Cassarino: Unfortunately that’s confidential.

*Have you paid anything to Rossi yet?*

Cassarino: Yes we have.

*How much?*

Cassarino: Let’s put it like this, it was an important piece of the
equation.


http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

2011-11-16 Thread Joshua Cude

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:

 If Rossi prevails, Krivit will certainly look bad, and so will the entire
 scientific establishment.


 I disagree.  With the present evidence, there is every reason to be
 skeptical of Rossi.


That's true. The skepticism of Rossi is justified. But if Rossi were to
prevail, then the scientific establishment will have clearly failed to
exploit a dramatically important effect identified 20 years ago -- an
effect that is pretty straightforward to set up, and that should be trivial
to demonstrate unequivocally. (Don't get me wrong; I don't expect this to
happen. But if cold fusion is real, then the advocates are right in that
science will have something to answer for.)


 The same criteria apply to any theory Krivit favors as they do to
 Rossi's.  If Krivit doesn't have the goods, there will be skeptical
 comments about his claims as well.  This should be about evidence and not
 beliefs.


Sure, I completely agree. But beliefs are a big part of what keeps this
controversy alive. And with a successful Rossi debunking under his belt,
Krivit will have some credibility to throw around. I actually think that
Krivit is pretty scrupulous, and believes in what he is doing. And I think
if he were to apply the same critical thinking to the entire field that he
has to Rossi, he might become a skeptic yet.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:

4. Rossi asked an engineer at NASA on July 22, 2011, for $15 million to
“test” his
device. NASA did not pay Rossi anything.

Should have paid. And also it was to be deposed in escrow account. Not
for Rossi. Money goes only for Rossi, is demonstration leads into
contract.

How do you know the terms of this supposed offer?

4. Rossi asked Defkalion to give him money by Aug. 1, 2011. Defkalion
did not pay
Rossi anything. Rossi himself is the source.

Rossi has always willing to do contracts with partners. Doing
contracts for production has nothing to do with collecting money from
private entities and investors.

If Rossi produced, why would Defkalion not pay him? It's supposed to be
the most valuable invention of the century!

Then there was that 18h test by Levi, Bianchini and Passerini, but it
should not be counted as a test, because it showed a success.
Therefore it must be just fabricated and in reality it never happened.

Perhaps you missed the fascinating interview that Krivit did with Rossi to
get at the bottom of that test.
Here is a link to the Youtube pieces from E-cat World:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/08/guiseppe-levi-conducts-video-interview-with-steven-krivit-about-his-testing-of-the-e-cat/

What you will hear is that Levi refuses to provide actual data and did not
calibrate the experiment. What totally amazes and confounds me is that in
all the time since February, Levi et al did not simply repeat this
otherwise excellently conceived experiment. It could have been improved
and refined by running a blank determination to prove that the output power
measurement was done right. It could have slowed the coolant flow for a
more reliable larger delta T measurement. And it could have run much
longer -- so long in fact that only nuclear energy could account for the
result. Finally, it could have been done using the E-cat as a black box
with *everything else* supplied by the university and not Rossi. If all
that had been done with a positive result, we would have nothing to argue.
As it is, we are left with nothing but embarrassing questions about Levi
and his experiment and his motivation and ability -- questions he
equivocates about in the embarrassing videos.

The hard part for everybody who joined in the promotion and cheerleading
for Rossi is
that they neglected to consider the importance of science, the
scientific method and
scientific protocol.

Krivit does not even understand basics about scientific method,
because he is requiring control experiments for experiments where
there is only one variable to be measured. Controls are only for
multiple variable studies.

You keep saying that but it's not correct. The purpose of controls (more
precisely, blank runs in which nuclear fuel is left out but an electrical
heater is providing comparable power) is to demonstrate that the
measurement *method* and *devices* are working correctly. This has been
argued at length -- steam or no steam, thermocouple placements, errors from
the hot side of the heat exchanger through the block, and so on. ALL of
that is gone if a blank test with an electrical heater gives the correct
result at the output measurement end. Rossi knows that -- he's been told
many times by probably dozens of people. That he doesn't do it is a strong
suggestion that his reaction isn't real.

What is most annoying with Krivit, that he has fixed his position
without objective evidence. If evidence to support the claim is not
adequate, then it does not follow that the claim is false. But as I
mentioned that Krivit is concluding, from the inconclusive evidence,
that Rossi is a fraudster and criminal.

That's the main place I disagree with Krivit. I think Rossi *acts* like I
would expect if he were a scammer. That doesn't prove he is one. Proof of
what he is may never be available. But for sure, if the identity of a
customer isn't revealed soon and Rossi continues to fail getting testing by
the two universities he claims he has arrangements with, the whole story
will seem more and more like a scam as time goes by.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

2011-11-16 Thread Harry Veeder

Rossi and Ampenergo, or the the people behind Ampenergo at any rate,
are not strangers. He has known them since the late 90s.


Harry

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Steven the Snake wrote:
  1. Rossi has publicly told all his fans that he will not ask for money
  until he has a
  product for sale. 2. They believed him and propagated this information
  widely but it is not true.

 This is false. Rossi has refused to take money from investor and
 private persons. Ampenergo was wholly different story. And we do not
 have any details about that, because Ampenergo's relationship with
 Rossi is unclear. Because of this blunder from the Snake, there is not
 much relevance for the rest, of his fighting against the windmills.


 This is pretty clear -- Rossi got a substantial sum from Ampenergo --or so
 they said.
 I tire of reposting it all the time because some people can't remember it:

 How much do you pay for the agreement?

 Cassarino: Unfortunately that’s confidential.

 Have you paid anything to Rossi yet?

 Cassarino: Yes we have.

 How much?

 Cassarino: Let’s put it like this, it was an important piece of the
 equation.

 http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:

 If Rossi prevails, Krivit will certainly look bad, and so will the entire
 scientific establishment.


 That's true. The skepticism of Rossi is justified. But if Rossi were to
 prevail, then the scientific establishment will have clearly failed to
 exploit a dramatically important effect identified 20 years ago -- an
 effect that is pretty straightforward to set up, and that should be trivial
 to demonstrate unequivocally. (Don't get me wrong; I don't expect this to
 happen. But if cold fusion is real, then the advocates are right in that
 science will have something to answer for.)


We agree that 20 years is a long time to wait for acceptance if cold fusion
is real and if it was truly identified by PF 20 years ago.  If so, the
entire scientific community must be incredibly obstinate or the proof for
cold fusion isn't very good or some combination of both.  Or maybe cold
fusion has yet to be properly demonstrated and the sincere researchers are
looking at errors and noise.  As I've said before, I have no way to choose
personally between those options.  My interest is focused only on Rossi
because of the robustness of the claims, the ease with which they could
have been proven and weren't,  and the incredibly weird way those claims
have been promoted.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

2011-11-16 Thread Terry Blanton

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote:
 good question, Mary !
 Any proof for: All we know is that after the Oct. 28 show, the shipping
 container with the 50 Fat-Cats was hauled away on a truck. ?

As of last week The Customer had not taken delivery on the MegaCat.
Rossi had to change the gaskets, etc.

T

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

 Joshua:
 If Rossi prevails, Krivit will certainly look bad, and so will the entire
 scientific establishment.
Mary:
 I disagree.  With the present evidence, there is every reason to be
 skeptical of Rossi.
Joshua:
 That's true. The skepticism of Rossi is justified.

Skepticism is justified, but what Krivit has provided, has nothing to
do with skepticism, but is more like that he is rebelling and sulking
to Rossi, because Rossi was not nice to him. Rossi treated Krivit
really bad and unfair way. I almost sorry him, because Rossi ridiculed
everything that Krivit so proudly stands for (i.e. Krivit is rigorous
scientist).

 But if Rossi were to
 prevail, then the scientific establishment will have clearly failed to
 exploit a dramatically important effect identified 20 years ago -- an effect
 that is pretty straightforward to set up, and that should be trivial to
 demonstrate unequivocally.

This is true that the Rossi's effect is trivial to demonstrate
unconditionally. But this is also the reason, that Rossi has not had
any interests to provide conclusive evidence to the public. I would
speculate, that his popularity was perhaps too high, due to very
positive reports in Italian media in May in aftermath of successful
April tests, that he invited Krivit to discredit himself.

What Rossi showed to Krivit was just abhorrent and awful and there was
no question, that most likely there was no excess heat at all.

Evidence for this is very clear, because small E-Cat never reached 5
kW output in previous demonstrations, but it was always around 2 kW.
But also the input power was small. But here Rossi raised the input
power to 800 watts, which was very odd. This does not fit at all for
the general behavior of version 2 E-Cat aka E-Kitten.

Rossi was already building the new model of Version 3 aka Fat-Cat that
was demonstrated with Stremmenos in July (he announced the fat-cat ca.
June 20th). It is not Rossi's style to show old models of E-Cats in
demonstrations. Therefore it is most likely explanation, that Rossi
only used Krivit to tarnish Rossi's own reputation by acting silly in
particularly obvious way and showing dummy demonstration.

Rossi anticipated that Krivit will write very angry scientific report
and indeed it was a great success, because Rossi's media popularity
went downhill. E.g. Physorg published very negative article citing
Krivit's report in NET.

I think that this is plausible explanation, because if Rossi wanted a
good reputation he would have gained it easily. But he never even
tried. I think that the main problem with Rossi was that the whole
January demonstration did not suit into Rossi's plans. Because he
wanted to have public announcement when he was commercially ready in
October.


Mary wrote:
 If Rossi produced, why would Defkalion not pay him?  It's supposed to be the 
 most
 valuable invention of the century!

Because Defkalion was a phony company! (This is just my opinion, and
it is based on similarly loose arguments like Krivit's arguments
against Rossi. All pieces just suit well that Defkalion had anything
substantial.)


Mary:
 The purpose of controls (more precisely, blank runs in which nuclear fuel is 
 left out
 but an electrical heater is providing comparable power) is to demonstrate 
 that the
 measurement *method* and *devices* are working correctly.

But it easier to calibrate the method during the drive. Even if
thermocouple is misplaced (what is unlikely) there is still
correlation between temperature and total enthalpy.

Blank run is just too time consuming, but is far more valuable to do
proper calorimetry with proper calibration of the method.


Mary:
 ALL of that is gone if a blank test with an electrical heater gives the 
 correct result at
 the output measurement end.  Rossi knows that -- he's been told many times by
 probably dozens of people.  That he doesn't do it is a strong suggestion that 
 his
 reaction isn't real.

Rossi does not allow it because the suggestion is nuts and wasting of
time, because it is better to do proper calorimetry. Or perhaps, there
was a blank run in June with Krivit's E-Cat. Why skeptics are not
satisfied with that blank run!

   –Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:


 Mary:
  ALL of that is gone if a blank test with an electrical heater gives the
 correct result at
  the output measurement end.  Rossi knows that -- he's been told many
 times by
  probably dozens of people.  That he doesn't do it is a strong suggestion
 that his
  reaction isn't real.

 Rossi does not allow it because the suggestion is nuts and wasting of
 time, because it is better to do proper calorimetry. Or perhaps, there
 was a blank run in June with Krivit's E-Cat. Why skeptics are not
 satisfied with that blank run!

   –Jouni

 What blank run was that?  Krivit did not make a blank run during that
visit unless you consider the entire run a blank.  I'd call it a dud or a
fizzle.  With apologies to non-English-speaking readers.  If you're
serious, it's silly.

The purpose of a blank/calibration run, I say *again*, is to validate the
measuring method and equipment.  I know of no other iron clad way to do
that.  Without it, arguments about dryness of steam and thermocouple
placement and pressure and endless others will continue.  With a proper
blank/calibration (if it's done correctly) all those arguments are
untenable.  It's ABSOLUTELY necessary.  Any self respecting scientist would
require it.  I have no idea why you can't grasp that.  It's usual and
standard to calibrate calorimeters with electrical heaters.  It's done
every day!

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

I need to add that a calibration run with an electrical heater supplying
all the heat also provides very valuable information about the heat
capacity and time constant of the system.  And finally, if hydrogen (but
nothing else) is omitted for the blank run, any chemical reaction or other
subterfuge which is activated by heating would be revealed.

Of course other ways of cheating are not totally excluded but proper blank
and calibration runs would go a long ways to inconveniencing a potential
scammer to the extreme if astute observers were standing by.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

2011/11/16 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com:
 The purpose of a blank/calibration run, I say *again*, is to validate the
 measuring method and equipment.  I know of no other iron clad way to do
 that.  Without it, arguments about dryness of steam and thermocouple
 placement and pressure and endless others will continue.  With a proper
 blank/calibration (if it's done correctly) all those arguments are
 untenable.  It's ABSOLUTELY necessary.  Any self respecting scientist would
 require it.  I have no idea why you can't grasp that.  It's usual and
 standard to calibrate calorimeters with electrical heaters.  It's done every
 day!


This is untrue, because blank run is trivial to falsify. It does not
improve the reliability or reduce the probability of a hoax.

Yet again it is far easier to do proper calibration of the
calorimetry. Not using time consuming blank run, because it does not
give us any increased accuracy of the measurements.

If we measure for the total enthalpy 25 MJ ± 5MJ and we measure for
the input energy using oscilloscope 5 MJ ± 50 kJ, then we get for the
excess heat 20 MJ ± 5 MJ. Blank run does not provide any increased
accuracy to our measurements, and we can just subtract the input
energy that was measured with accuracy of ±50kJ. That is, we know the
result of blank run a priori.

In science, we are only interested to determine the proper error
margins for the measurements.  For example, that superluminal neutrino
was observed with probability of six sigma.

–Jouni


Ps. you are correct, that blank run would give information about the
heat capacity of E-Cat. E.g. Horace Heffner ignored in his analysis
that Oct 6th Fat-Cat had very high heat capacity (ca. 18 MJ) that did
not show in the calorimetry. (However I have not read his updated
versions so I am not sure if he has discussed it in later versions.)

But there is also the thing, that heat capacity is rather simple to
calculate if we know the metal mass and water storage capacity.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

2011-11-16 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence

There are actually some technical difficulties with a blank run in the 
Rossi E-cat.


Wet cold fusion researchers sometimes have used H2O in a blank run, 
and compared evolved heat using D2O with the blank output.  If the D2O 
produces a heat measurement value higher than the H2O then they can 
conclude, with good certainty, that something interesting happened.  
That sort of yes/no blank comparison run is harder to arrange for the E-Cat.


The trouble is that H2(gas)+Ni(powder) reacts exothermically, as the 
hydrogen is adsorbed onto the nickel.  This means that a blank run 
using, say, nitrogen in place of hydrogen can be expected to produce 
*less* *measured* *heat* than the H2 run, even if there's no new 
chemistry or physics taking place in the loaded E-Cat.  And that 
leaves you right back where you started, trying to do precise 
calorimetry on the loaded run to determine exactly how much excess 
heat was produced, and comparing it with a theoretical value for heat 
of adsorption.


Alternatives which could give a more useful blank might include using D2 
for the blank rather than N2, or using live H2 and Ni but leaving out 
the secret catalyst.  But just how blank these blanks might be 
depends on details of the E-Cat's operation which are currently unknown 
to the general public, so it's not entirely clear how well they'd work.


On 11-11-16 02:01 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
I need to add that a calibration run with an electrical heater 
supplying all the heat also provides very valuable information about 
the heat capacity and time constant of the system.  And finally, if 
hydrogen (but nothing else) is omitted for the blank run, any chemical 
reaction or other subterfuge which is activated by heating would be 
revealed.


Of course other ways of cheating are not totally excluded but proper 
blank and calibration runs would go a long ways to inconveniencing a 
potential scammer to the extreme if astute observers were standing by.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

2011-11-16 Thread Rich Murray

Mary Yugo's recent cogent comments re blank runs are here replicated for
emphasis:

You keep saying that but it's not correct.
The purpose of controls (more precisely, blank runs in which nuclear fuel
is left out but an electrical heater is providing comparable power) is to
demonstrate that the measurement *method* and *devices* are working
correctly.
This has been argued at length -- steam or no steam, thermocouple
placements, errors from the hot side of the heat exchanger through the
block, and so on.
ALL of that is gone if a blank test with an electrical heater gives the
correct result at the output measurement end.
Rossi knows that -- he's been told many times by probably dozens of people.
That he doesn't do it is a strong suggestion that his reaction isn't real.


The purpose of a blank/calibration run, I say *again*, is to validate the
measuring method and equipment.
I know of no other iron clad way to do that.
Without it, arguments about dryness of steam and thermocouple placement and
pressure and endless others will continue.
With a proper blank/calibration (if it's done correctly) all those
arguments are untenable.
It's ABSOLUTELY necessary.
Any self respecting scientist would require it.
I have no idea why you can't grasp that.
It's usual and standard to calibrate calorimeters with electrical heaters.
It's done every day!


On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:

I need to add that a calibration run with an electrical heater supplying
 all the heat also provides very valuable information about the heat
 capacity and time constant of the system.



 And finally, if hydrogen (but nothing else) is omitted for the blank run,
 any chemical reaction or other subterfuge which is activated by heating
 would be revealed.

 Of course other ways of cheating are not totally excluded but proper blank
 and calibration runs would go a long ways to inconveniencing a potential
 scammer to the extreme if astute observers were standing by.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

2011-11-16 Thread Jed Rothwell

Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:


 The trouble is that H2(gas)+Ni(powder) reacts exothermically, as the
 hydrogen is adsorbed onto the nickel.  This means that a blank run using,
 say, nitrogen in place of hydrogen can be expected to produce *less*
 *measured* *heat* than the H2 run . . .


Yup. There is another huge practical problem with doing a blank run.
Injecting nitrogen, air or some other gas into the powder will probably
contaminate and destroy the powder. This is a problem because of powder is
expensive and difficult to fabricate. It is also a problem because after
you contaminate it, you could not produce heat from it. You would have to
produce heat first, then do your destructive blank run.

This is like demanding that Mr. Ford first demonstrate that his Model T can
drive at 40 mph, then he must demonstrate that when you crash it into a
brick wall at 40 mph, it is destroyed and cannot drive at any speed after
that.

As Valconen pointed out, there is no technical justification for a blank
run, and it would be trivial to falsify. It does not improve the
reliability or reduce the probability of a hoax.

Regarding the title of this thread, Krivit (and Yugo too, I think) claim it
is possible to commit fraud with an escrow agreement in which the customer
can do any amount of testing before final acceptance, and the customer is
free to return the goods for any reason without executing the escrow
agreement. (I assume there is some reasonable time restriction, such as 4
months.) Apparently, these people do not know an escrow agreement is, or
what final acceptance means. This is business 101. Fraud is impossible
with these arrangements, unless the customer defrauds himself.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

2011-11-16 Thread Jed Rothwell


Mary Yugo wrote:

  If so, the entire scientific community must be incredibly obstinate 
or the proof for cold fusion isn't very good or some combination of both.


It is entirely the first. That is true of all other examples in which 
the scientific establishment rejected claims for years or decades. You 
can find hundreds of examples; this sort of thing happens all the time. 
The quality of the proof is never an issue. The proof of cold fusion is 
better than the proof of countless other claims that were instantly 
accepted. As I said, the only metric that counts is money. Academic 
funding: money and power. People oppose cold fusion because their 
salaries depend upon opposing it. This is Upton Sinclair's dictum: It 
is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary 
depends upon his not understanding it!


Others oppose it because they oppose everything.


  Or maybe cold fusion has yet to be properly demonstrated and the 
sincere researchers are looking at errors and noise. 


You can only believe that if you refuse to look at the data, or if you 
do not understand the concepts of errors and noise. You have convince 
yourself that experts cannot measure 20 W output with no input. That's a 
lot like saying a doctor cannot be sure if a decapitated a patient is 
alive or dead.



As I've said before, I have no way to choose personally between those 
options.  My interest is focused only on Rossi because of the 
robustness of the claims . . .


The cold fusion claims are equally robust, from a scientific point of 
view. You have no way of judging that because you refuse to look at 
them. You also have no way of knowing whether you could understand them 
if you looked at them. No doubt that is why you refuse to look: it gives 
you plausible deniability.


Experts such as Heinz Gerischer who looked that the results in 1990 were 
instantly convinced. They did not have the slightest doubt the results 
are real.



We agree that 20 years is a long time to wait for acceptance if cold 
fusion is real and if it was truly identified by PF 20 years ago.


Every expert who has looked at these results carefully says it is real, 
except Britz. Some of the 2004 DoE panel members who spent a few hours 
looking at it in parlor game style review were not convinced, but the 
reasons they gave for doubting it were ludicrous.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:

 There are actually some technical difficulties with a blank run in the
 Rossi E-cat.

 Wet cold fusion researchers sometimes have used H2O in a blank run, and
 compared evolved heat using D2O with the blank output.  If the D2O produces
 a heat measurement value higher than the H2O then they can conclude, with
 good certainty, that something interesting happened.  That sort of yes/no
 blank comparison run is harder to arrange for the E-Cat.

 The trouble is that H2(gas)+Ni(powder) reacts exothermically, as the
 hydrogen is adsorbed onto the nickel.  This means that a blank run using,
 say, nitrogen in place of hydrogen can be expected to produce *less*
 *measured* *heat* than the H2 run, even if there's no new chemistry or
 physics taking place in the loaded E-Cat.  And that leaves you right back
 where you started, trying to do precise calorimetry on the loaded run to
 determine exactly how much excess heat was produced, and comparing it
 with a theoretical value for heat of adsorption.


I don't really see an exothermic reaction with hydrogen as a problem.  The
error would be in favor of Rossi and I am happy to accept it if (and only
if) he runs so long that it's accounted for along with any other
non-nuclear source of energy.  There's nt need to run D2O or to try
removing the nickel as I agree, that would be problematical.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

2011-11-16 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 11-11-16 05:32 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:



On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com 
mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:


There are actually some technical difficulties with a blank run
in the Rossi E-cat.

Wet cold fusion researchers sometimes have used H2O in a blank
run, and compared evolved heat using D2O with the blank output.
 If the D2O produces a heat measurement value higher than the H2O
then they can conclude, with good certainty, that something
interesting happened.  That sort of yes/no blank comparison run is
harder to arrange for the E-Cat.

The trouble is that H2(gas)+Ni(powder) reacts exothermically, as
the hydrogen is adsorbed onto the nickel.  This means that a blank
run using, say, nitrogen in place of hydrogen can be expected to
produce *less* *measured* *heat* than the H2 run, even if there's
no new chemistry or physics taking place in the loaded E-Cat.
 And that leaves you right back where you started, trying to do
precise calorimetry on the loaded run to determine exactly how
much excess heat was produced, and comparing it with a
theoretical value for heat of adsorption.


I don't really see an exothermic reaction with hydrogen as a problem.  
The error would be in favor of Rossi and I am happy to accept it if 
(and only if) he runs so long that it's accounted for...


Oh get real.  You just made my point -- the blank and non-blank runs 
must run long enough so the excess due to adsorption is accounted 
for -- as I said, we're right back to square 1, arguing over the 
calorimetry.


As I said, it's not a yes/no test -- yes, the signature is higher than 
the blank, or no, it's not.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:

 2011/11/16 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com:
  The purpose of a blank/calibration run, I say *again*, is to validate the
  measuring method and equipment.  I know of no other iron clad way to do
  that.  Without it, arguments about dryness of steam and thermocouple
  placement and pressure and endless others will continue.  With a proper
  blank/calibration (if it's done correctly) all those arguments are
  untenable.  It's ABSOLUTELY necessary.  Any self respecting scientist
 would
  require it.  I have no idea why you can't grasp that.  It's usual and
  standard to calibrate calorimeters with electrical heaters.  It's done
 every
  day!
 

 This is untrue, because blank run is trivial to falsify. It does not
 improve the reliability or reduce the probability of a hoax.


Would you mind restating that another way?  I can't understand.  What do
you mean in this context by falsify?  I don't understand your objection.
A blank run with an electrical heater providing power simply demonstrates
that BOTH the measuring method AND the measuring instruments work
properly.  It accounts for the time constant of the system and also for any
losses.  Unless done badly, it HAS to do that.   It does take time but not
all that much because unlike the real run which go a very long time anyway,
the calibration run only needs to go until things are relatively stable.
If that seems too long, it can go until you can easily calculate where the
time-temperature curves are going to flatten.  This is standard stuff in
large volume calorimeters.


 Yet again it is far easier to do proper calibration of the
 calorimetry. Not using time consuming blank run, because it does not
 give us any increased accuracy of the measurements.


It does if the water doesn't all vaporize to steam or the thermocouples are
placed in too warm a location to represent T-out.  Why wouldn't it help in
such cases?

I understand you can also sparge all the steam in a water tank and
eliminate some of the objections but Rossi has not done that either!   And
that can't run as long as other methods because the water will get too hot
or the tank will have to be extremely large.  I suppose you could heat up a
swimming pool.  That would be a good test (again with electrical heating
calibration first -- this time to determine losses from the pool).



 If we measure for the total enthalpy 25 MJ ± 5MJ and we measure for
 the input energy using oscilloscope 5 MJ ± 50 kJ, then we get for the
 excess heat 20 MJ ± 5 MJ. Blank run does not provide any increased
 accuracy to our measurements, and we can just subtract the input
 energy that was measured with accuracy of ±50kJ. That is, we know the
 result of blank run a priori.


But that's the whole issue.  You may not be measuring enthalpy by Rossi's
methods. They may give a WRONG result!  What about that is it that you
can't understand?  In FACT, the thermocouples could be misplaced and the
water may not all be converted to steam (which is important is some
experiments and not others).  How would you know that without calibrating?
Why would you want to avoid calibration unless you were faking it?   Yeah,
I know it takes time.  Any idea how many person-hours have been wasted if
Rossi's machine turns out to be bunk?


 In science, we are only interested to determine the proper error
 margins for the measurements.  For example, that superluminal neutrino
 was observed with probability of six sigma.


But that's what we're arguing about -- the error margin -- and you tell me
you don't want to do a simple thing that tells you what it is?  WHY?  I
know.  It takes time.


 But there is also the thing, that heat capacity is rather simple to
 calculate if we know the metal mass and water storage capacity.



Yes but you don't know.  You have no clue what it inside the finned
contained inside the big E-cat.  None whatsoever except what Rossi said.

Just out of curiosity, do I need to keep arguing in favor of calibration
with a blank?  Is there anyone else who doesn't get why it's desirable?
Even essential?  I understand a blank may not be perfect because of the
hydrogen issue and I understand there are other reasons the demo may be
faked but the simple test I propose would remove a lot of not all of the
uncertainty about the output heat measurement.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:


 The trouble is that H2(gas)+Ni(powder) reacts exothermically, as the
 hydrogen is adsorbed onto the nickel.  This means that a blank run using,
 say, nitrogen in place of hydrogen can be expected to produce *less*
 *measured* *heat* than the H2 run . . .


 Yup. There is another huge practical problem with doing a blank run.
 Injecting nitrogen, air or some other gas into the powder will probably
 contaminate and destroy the powder. This is a problem because of powder is
 expensive and difficult to fabricate. It is also a problem because after
 you contaminate it, you could not produce heat from it. You would have to
 produce heat first, then do your destructive blank run.


Tell me again who said anything about injecting anything?  It certainly was
not me.  The only thing I'd inject before the start of the real run is
heat, generated from a metered electrical source.

This is like demanding that Mr. Ford first demonstrate that his Model T can
 drive at 40 mph, then he must demonstrate that when you crash it into a
 brick wall at 40 mph, it is destroyed and cannot drive at any speed after
 that.


No.  Why would heating the powder destroys it? If the heat is moderate, I
am certain it wouldn't, based on what Rossi has said about running
temperatures up to 500 C.There is no issue of injecting anything except
heat.  The reactor is sitting there like it always does.  Instead of
injecting hydrogen, you heat the device electrically and measure the output
with the instruments until a steady state is reached.  That's your
calibration run with a blank charge.Then you allow it to cool, charge
it with hydrogen, and run again.  I don't see how that hurts the precious
secret powder which, by the way, Rossi denies is expensive.

As Valconen pointed out, there is no technical justification for a blank
 run, and it would be trivial to falsify. It does not improve the
 reliability or reduce the probability of a hoax.


As you're fond of noting, hoax and error are two different things.  I don't
know (and asked for clarification) what she means by falsify.   If she
means fake the blank run, I don't see it.  How do you fake a calibration
run when done with observers?  The input power is metered, the output power
is measured however it will be measured during a real run.  It's very
simple to do.  I am not sure what problem you guys see with it.  I simply
don't understand the argument!

As to hoax, yes, it does not rule out a hoax except for a hoax which would
be heat activated and at least it does that.  My suggestion is not intended
to rule out all hoaxes.  It's intended to stop the constant arguments about
measurement methods for the output energy!  Can I say it clearer?


 Regarding the title of this thread, Krivit (and Yugo too, I think) claim
 it is possible to commit fraud with an escrow agreement in which the
 customer can do any amount of testing before final acceptance


I said no such thing and think no such thing.  I think it's possible, even
easy, to bamboozle early (and even later) investors and to trap them with
very well written NDA's and disclaimers relative to the investment.  I
don't think you can fool a customer very long.  What I said was that I
don't believe we have any reason to think Rossi has or ever had a paying
customer -- except for what Rossi says.  I don't put much belief in that
because of the insufficient tests and because of censoring and the
tangential and bizarre answers he gives to perfectly appropriate questions
on his blog.

Of course there is such a thing as escrow fraud -- in fact it's common
Nigerian fraud scheme.  It's not related to this and not within the scope
of the discussion but you can look it up.  Basically, the escrow agent is
not a real company and is part of the fraud.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mary Yugo wrote:

   Or maybe cold fusion has yet to be properly demonstrated and the sincere
 researchers are looking at errors and noise.


 You can only believe that if you refuse to look at the data, or if you do
 not understand the concepts of errors and noise. You have convince yourself
 that experts cannot measure 20 W output with no input. That's a lot like
 saying a doctor cannot be sure if a decapitated a patient is alive or dead.


20W output for how long?  I asked you many times for a long running test of
this kind with no issues about any fuel being supplied or power being input
or stored.  I have yet to see one.  Can you put up a link to just ONE
crystal clear and well written up such study?  I have no problem with the
20W.   As long as it CAN'T COME from anything other than a nuclear process.



 The cold fusion claims are equally robust, from a scientific point of
 view. You have no way of judging that because you refuse to look at them.
 You also have no way of knowing whether you could understand them if you
 looked at them. No doubt that is why you refuse to look: it gives you
 plausible deniability.


BS!  I looked at what you provided and I didn't understand it.  There was
no clear plot of time vs excess power in any documents you linked for me
that I examined.  There was no clear discussion of why the excess heat had
to be nuclear.  I had no idea what was on the coordinate axis labels or
why.  I am not primarily a heat transfer specialist.  I have some training
and experience in it but I could not read those graphs without tons of work
and explanation.  It need not be that way.  Time vs excess power is very
simple.  And the time axis had better go for a very long time.  Have any?
I'd love to look and I bet everyone here would like them too, believers and
skeptics about Rossi alike.

Asking people to review dozens or hundreds of paper to demonstrate that
cold fusion is real is ludicrous.

Experts such as Heinz Gerischer who looked that the results in 1990 were
 instantly convinced. They did not have the slightest doubt the results are
 real.


Good for Heinz.  Doesn't help me.  BTW, that reference is a classical
appeal to authority logical fallacy.  Thousands of people were convinced
originally by PF.  Until they tried to replicate their work and then it
all came crashing down.  You may prefer to think that's due to evil doers
and pathological skeptics (what ever that is) but I doubt it very very much,


  We agree that 20 years is a long time to wait for acceptance if cold
 fusion is real and if it was truly identified by PF 20 years ago.


 Every expert who has looked at these results carefully says it is real,
 except Britz. Some of the 2004 DoE panel members who spent a few hours
 looking at it in parlor game style review were not convinced, but the
 reasons they gave for doubting it were ludicrous.



I suppose we'd better to stick to Rossi again.  God knows, that takes
enough time and energy when it need not require hardly any.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:

 **
 I don't really see an exothermic reaction with hydrogen as a problem.  The
 error would be in favor of Rossi and I am happy to accept it if (and only
 if) he runs so long that it's accounted for...

 Oh get real.  You just made my point -- the blank and non-blank runs must
 run long enough so the excess due to adsorption is accounted for -- as
 I said, we're right back to square 1, arguing over the calorimetry.

 As I said, it's not a yes/no test -- yes, the signature is higher than the
 blank, or no, it's not.


No.  The signature in the blank is higher?  What does that mean?  That
the blank will run hotter than should be expected?  Why would that be?

A blank would be run without hydrogen.  Nothing else would be different
except for some electrical heat put in. And for calibrating the system, it
need not be a whole lot of heat.

For the run, hydrogen would be added.  If that's exothermic, fine.  You get
more signal temporarily from adding the hydrogen.  You can measure that
also very easily.  Rossi *always* starts the reaction with heat.  Just hold
off the heat, put in the hydrogen.  See if there's heat.  If so it's a
reaction between hydrogen and the powder but not nuclear.  Subtract it.

Actually, I've never seen or heard discussion of any rise in temperature in
a Rossi device until he heats it electrically (one of the things that makes
me suspicious!).   So any heat contribution from just adding hydrogen is
probably no issue -- if it is, just add the hydrogen,  measure the heat
from that operation and then when it's over, cook the darn thing to a
start.  What did I miss here?  What are we arguing about again?

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

2011-11-16 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 11-11-16 06:16 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:



On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com 
mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:


I don't really see an exothermic reaction with hydrogen as a
problem.  The error would be in favor of Rossi and I am happy to
accept it if (and only if) he runs so long that it's accounted for...

Oh get real.  You just made my point -- the blank and non-blank
runs must run long enough so the excess due to adsorption is
accounted for -- as I said, we're right back to square 1, arguing
over the calorimetry.

As I said, it's not a yes/no test -- yes, the signature is higher
_than_ the blank, or no, it's not.


No.  The signature in the blank is higher?  What does that mean?


It means you didn't read it right.  I said higher /*than*/ the blank, 
not higher */in/* the blank.


Obviously.

Obvious, at any rate, if you devote more than about half a second to 
trying to understand it.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.