subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:Stop Destroying Keyboards"

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> ... but all of his choices seem risky. ...
>
>
But that's the thing. They are not. Performing a completely thorough
test, as Rossi was advised to do, is not risky even in public. Certainly
it is not as risky as a sale.

Neither is a secret test performed by a university certified for example
for "secret clearance" (or whatever that's called outside of the US). The
university could be allowed to report the method and result of the test,
including detailed data, without revealing anything about confidential
aspect of construction or contents of internal parts. That's the "test
independently as a black box idea".

Even if all tests were secret, if they were done by independent and
credible organizations, Rossi could then get another reliable party on the
scale and of the scope of Microsoft or Google, General Electric, General
Atomic, Oracle, you name it -- he could get anybody he wanted to make the
production devices for him, help him get certification, the sky would be
the limit.

It would not be a case of what we have now -- arguable and somewhat bizarre
incomplete tests done for a few scientists and reporters, using at first
what seemed like -- I won't say what I think here -- let's just say a
strange collection of corroded and ill aligned copper tubes wrapped with
inexpensive insulation.

It would be a case of cold fusion come to maturity and general acceptance.
That isn't what Rossi did though, is it?

By the way, have you seen Krivit's claim that Quantum and NASA were both
shown Rossi's machine, attempted to test it their way, were thwarted by
Rossi and left in disgust? Or that Rossi asked for millions of dollars
before the tests were even completed.

I hope this isn't redundant-- I have not seen it specifically discussed
here yet. It's in a response to responses to a blog article. You may need
to scroll down to it here:

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/12/swedish-public-radio-turns-spotlight-on-lewan-and-ny-teknik/#comments

If you need to search, it starts "1. Rossi has publicly told all his fans
that he will not ask for money until he has a product for sale" ... etc.
etc.

The way it's put about Quantum and NASA is news to me. Of course, I have
no way to verify it. Anyone know for sure if it went down that way?

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
> So you think experts on intellectual property protection told Rossi to
> give 12 or more poorly controlled and calibrated demonstrations more or
> less in public, not to get a single independent test . . .
>

They would not advise him about this. It is not any concern of theirs. The
experts on patents that I know say they have no opinions about his public
tests. They say that as long as he has people sign NDAs for more revealing
tests, these tests are not relevant to intellectual property.

> . . .   and to sell 50+ modules to a person or company who chose to stay
> anonymous?
>

The company is not anonymous to Rossi! He knows what company it is. If he
has good lawyers, I suppose he has them sewed up with an agreement not to
steal the IP. I wouldn't know about that. It is a risky thing to do, but
all of his choices seem risky.

>   While inviting the press and selected scientists to a demo of that
> device at which they were not allowed to oversee data collection?If
> Rossi paid for such advice, he should get his money back!
>

No IP lawyer would advise him about these matters. The demo, press and data
collection have nothing to do with the issues a patent lawyer discusses
with a client, as far as I know. That's what IP experts say.

They definitely would tell him not to reveal his method of control, or the
make up of the powder, or the other things he refuses to discuss on his
blog. I'll bet they would be upset that he revealed the powder is made from
Ni and two other elements.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
>
>> If I knew something worth a vast fortune, I'd consult with the best
>> possible people about how to protect it. I'd pay them well and do what they
>> said to.
>
>
> How do you know Rossi is not doing that?
>
>
So you think experts on intellectual property protection told Rossi to give
12 or more poorly controlled and calibrated demonstrations more or less in
public, not to get a single independent test,  and to sell 50+ modules to a
person or company who chose to stay anonymous?   While inviting the press
and selected scientists to a demo of that device at which they were not
allowed to oversee data collection?If Rossi paid for such advice, he
should get his money back!

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Mary Yugo  wrote:

> If I knew something worth a vast fortune, I'd consult with the best
> possible people about how to protect it. I'd pay them well and do what they
> said to.

How do you know Rossi is not doing that? He has hired top experts at NI to
design his control systems. He is not a fool. I disagree with some of his
business decisions. I agree with others. Most of them I know nothing about,
and neither do you.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

2011-11-15 Thread Charles Hope

On Nov 15, 2011, at 11:17, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Many things about Rossi make no sense. He is not a predictable person, and 
> not easy to understand. His motivations are obscure. He is complicated. His 
> business practices seem risky and ineffective to me. He does many things that 
> make him look bad, as I have often pointed out.

Yes, his behavior is highly irrational. 

I have had conversations with schizophrenics, asking questions and agreeing 
with everything they say in order to understand their worldview. It doesn't 
work. Instead of converging upon a consistent although fantastic world, instead 
they take me on a ride, constantly introducing new ideas, contradicting 
previous ones, but they never notice the contradictions. There's no there 
there.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> Oh come now. You know perfectly well there is a good reason for not
> telling people this sort of thing. This information is worth a trillion
> dollars.

The secret to producing cold fusion is worth a lot. That he claims is his
catalyst. It's difficult to imagine that controlling it by ordinary
engineering means (power, pressure, flow rate and so on) would be that hard
to figure out, once people are convinced the reaction is working.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> There is no doubt he has control over it.
>

Wrong. I doubt he has control over it, other than the obvious input current
to heat it up, and maybe start some kind of reaction, and cooling water to
cool it down, and maybe stop it. But I seriously doubt there is any kind of
feedback and continuous control during the run in order to stabilize it. I
could be wrong, but there is simply no indication of it in the behavior of
the temperatures, in the connections, in Rossi's behavior. Oh, I wouldn't
rule out the occasional surreptitious increases in input power when he
thinks no one is watching, and the power is not monitored... if you call
that control.

> I do not think his control was very good back in February during the 18
> hour test, when the temperature went skyhigh. People say Rossi looked
> frightened when that happened. I would have been terrified. Rossi has guts.
>

Which people say that, and where?

 He has no obligation to tell anyone. It is not in his interest to tell
> anyone.
>

I agree with that. Uncertainty is in his interest.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> Oh come now. You know perfectly well there is a good reason for not
> telling people this sort of thing. This information is worth a trillion
> dollars. If he has not filed a patent application, and he goes around
> telling people this sort of thing, he would be giving away a fortune. Who
> would do that?!? If you knew something that was worth a vast fortune, but
> only if you kept it secret, would you go around telling people?
>
> If he has filed a patent, that's a different story.
>

Well, he said he had sold a reactor and was about to sell more.  There are
fifty units in each reactor.  Isn't that a bigger risk than telling people
(generically) how he controls the reaction?  He says a lot of stuff on his
blog -- tons of it.  Why if he's so secretive?   And why sell a big machine
with 50 reactors in it that has virtually no possible application other
reverse engineering.  Especially for a trillion potential dollars.
Indeed, Rossi works in mysterious ways.

If I knew something worth a vast fortune, I'd consult with the best
possible people about how to protect it. I'd pay them well and do what they
said to. I'd try to make their profits contingent on mine.  Sort of like
Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Facebook's founders did.   What I would never
do is give demos to anyone until it had been protected.  And then the demos
would be clear, independently conducted and properly performed.  But that's
just me.  I'm old fashioned and not very rich so maybe Rossi is smarter.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards


Mary Yugo wrote:

Why was Rossi tweaking the heat in mid experiment during the session 
dissected by Krivit in which Rossi peers nervously about and says 
"stable, stable"?  How does a safety heater quench the reaction? I 
bet if you ask Rossi, he will tell you (in my opinion without reason) 
that all this is secret.


Oh come now. You know perfectly well there is a good reason for not 
telling people this sort of thing. This information is worth a trillion 
dollars. If he has not filed a patent application, and he goes around 
telling people this sort of thing, he would be giving away a fortune. 
Who would do that?!? If you knew something that was worth a vast 
fortune, but only if you kept it secret, would you go around telling people?


If he has filed a patent, that's a different story.

You might as well say: "The banks have lots of money. They should just 
leave the cash on the sidewalks outside their offices so that anyone can 
take as much money as they like. Instead, they keep it in vaults (in my 
opinion without reason)."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

> As far as I know, Rossi has never said how he controls the device.
>

I do not recall that he has ever described this. A lot of people think it
is by heating up the powder. That does not make a lot of sense to me.

> He's said -- or implied -- that he has some amount of control over it . . .
>

There is no doubt he has control over it. I think any other cold fusion
cell would have been so unstable, it would blown up, the way Mizuno's did.
Only with 10 or 100 times more force. Mizuno's explosion drove a shard of
glass deep into his throat, and deafened him and the other person who was
in the room for hours. A larger explosion with a metal cell like Rossi's
would have blown their heads off.

I do not think his control was very good back in February during the 18
hour test, when the temperature went skyhigh. People say Rossi looked
frightened when that happened. I would have been terrified. Rossi has guts.

> . . . and he's said that use of the electric heater is necessary for
> control.  But if he's ever described exactly how the heater is used to make
> it go -- or stop -- I missed it.  He starts it by heating it up, but after
> that  ?  He's also said something to the effect that the cells can't be
> "throttled" . . .
>

Yup. Kind of vague. Maybe some misdirection? He has no obligation to tell
anyone. It is not in his interest to tell anyone.

What he needs, and what the rest of the world needs, is for him to get a
patent. The sooner the better.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards




On 11-11-15 05:05 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:



-He can use more reactant because he has better control.

It's just a niggle but I don't think, other than from what Rossi says, 
we have any sure understanding of how he even purports to control the 
device.


As far as I know, Rossi has never said how he controls the device.

He's said -- or implied -- that he has some amount of control over it, 
and he's said that use of the electric heater is necessary for control.  
But if he's ever described exactly how the heater is used to make it go 
-- or stop -- I missed it.  He starts it by heating it up, but after 
that  ?  He's also said something to the effect that the cells can't 
be "throttled", so it's not possible to operate them in a reduced power 
mode, which seems odd considering the other assertions we've seen on 
this list about the fineness of the control he has over the reaction 
(comments about lack of control were from his blog, sorry, I haven't got 
a URL for that and it was months ago, all I have is my fallible memory 
to go on).


There's been lots of speculation about how the control works, and 
there's been speculation about feedback to the heater controls, and 
there's been speculation as to whether or not he was adjusting the heat 
from moment to moment to keep the thing in the correct power band, but 
as far as I know there's no solid information available from Rossi or 
anyone else about any of this.


There's also been speculation about how he holds the power output in the 
exact range needed to vaporize all the water without superheating the 
steam, and how, if he's adjusting the power based on the internal water 
level, he even can tell exactly what the internal water level is at a 
given moment, but again, it's all just speculation.  Rossi has said 
nothing about this.





While we're on that subject, why is a safety heater needed in a highly 
exothermic system? ("Safety heater" is Rossi's expression)


Why does the large band "safety" heater which surrounds the original 
E-cat heat only (certainly mostly) the cooling water directly?  How is 
the output power of the cell regulated?  What devices are used to 
control it and how are they connected and where do they get their 
sensor input?   What sensors are used and where are they located.   
Why was Rossi tweaking the heat in mid experiment during the session 
dissected by Krivit in which Rossi peers nervously about and says 
"stable, stable"?  How does a safety heater quench the reaction? I 
bet if you ask Rossi, he will tell you (in my opinion without reason) 
that all this is secret.  I could give you my opinion of why it's 
secret but I already said it many times.


Note that when Rossi wants the system to shut down, he accomplishes it 
by increasing coolant flow from self sustain mode, and when the heater 
was on, by shutting it off.   Note that in so-called self-sustaining 
mode, he does not shut off the device by turning on the safety 
heater.  This whole business of heaters for safety (or for that matter 
1/6 input power to output power for safety) doesn't make any sense 
unless you use extremely convoluted and bizarre reasoning.  Even then, 
it would be much better done in a simpler way.


I'd still like to see one lovely gargantuan explosion -- out in the 
desert where it couldn't hurt anyone.


Well, sure, explosions are fun.  (That's why movies with lots of FX are 
so popular.  It's also one reason people like fireworks.)



  With good measurements, it would be possible to estimate the yield 
and from the device's size and mass, one could get a clue about 
whether or not it was nuclear.   On another forum, when I mentioned 
that, someone objected that Rossi doesn't want to emphasize 
explosions.  If so, he wouldn't mention them himself as he has done on 
his blog in trying without success to explain why a power generating 
device uses a large heater for safety.

'

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

>
> -He can use more reactant because he has better control.
>
> It's just a niggle but I don't think, other than from what Rossi says, we
have any sure understanding of how he even purports to control the device.

While we're on that subject, why is a safety heater needed in a highly
exothermic system? ("Safety heater" is Rossi's expression)

Why does the large band "safety" heater which surrounds the original E-cat
heat only (certainly mostly) the cooling water directly?  How is the output
power of the cell regulated?  What devices are used to control it and how
are they connected and where do they get their sensor input?   What sensors
are used and where are they located.   Why was Rossi tweaking the heat in
mid experiment during the session dissected by Krivit in which Rossi peers
nervously about and says "stable, stable"?  How does a safety heater quench
the reaction? I bet if you ask Rossi, he will tell you (in my opinion
without reason) that all this is secret.  I could give you my opinion of
why it's secret but I already said it many times.

Note that when Rossi wants the system to shut down, he accomplishes it by
increasing coolant flow from self sustain mode, and when the heater was on,
by shutting it off.   Note that in so-called self-sustaining mode, he does
not shut off the device by turning on the safety heater.  This whole
business of heaters for safety (or for that matter 1/6 input power to
output power for safety) doesn't make any sense unless you use extremely
convoluted and bizarre reasoning.  Even then, it would be much better done
in a simpler way.

I'd still like to see one lovely gargantuan explosion -- out in the desert
where it couldn't hurt anyone.  With good measurements, it would be
possible to estimate the yield and from the device's size and mass, one
could get a clue about whether or not it was nuclear.   On another forum,
when I mentioned that, someone objected that Rossi doesn't want to
emphasize explosions.  If so, he wouldn't mention them himself as he has
done on his blog in trying without success to explain why a power
generating device uses a large heater for safety.
'

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

> No, he does not claim way more power. Adjusting for the mass of reactant
> it is about the same as Fleischmann and Pons boiling experiments.
>
>
> Wait ... Does this mean that the Saturn V didn't actually produce "'way
> more power" than my Subaru's 4 cylinder engine, because the Saturn V
> weighed "'way more" than my car?
>

My mistake. I should have said "power density."

Rossi gets more power because he uses more reactant. He can use more
reactant because he has better control.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

>
>
> On 11-11-15 12:10 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>> The total reactor (the ecat) clearly participates in the heating of the
>> fluid, so the comparison of the overall power density is relevant. The much
>> lower (claimed) overall power density coincides with the first
>> demonstration that was not supposed to rely on making steam for the power
>> calculation. It also coincides with what Rossi calls self-sustaining.
>> That's suspicious.
>>
>
> If I understand you, you've just said that the fact that the power density
> in the most recent test coincided with the power density in the
> "self-sustaining" mode is suspicious.  Why do you say that?  Or is that
> what you meant at all?  (I'm having trouble with the antecedent to "That".)
>
> I understand the issue regarding steam (and "suspicious" isn't the word
> I'd use) but I don't see the connection between the self-sustaining mode
> and the 28 Oct overall power density.
>
>
Sorry, it was badly written. There are two related issues.

One is that in the first demo that Rossi agrees not to use steam in his
calculation of output power, the calculation of output power density is
dramatically lower. That suggests to me that in previous steam calculating
demos the power density was exaggerated by an overestimate of the degree of
vaporization, just as many people suspected.  If the bulk of the heating is
from thermal mass inside the entire ecat, then overall power density is the
metric of interest here, but one suspects that if he had used the old ecat,
the power would also have been lower. To get his (smaller) over-unity
without the suspected steam trick, it appears he used a suspected
thermocouple placement trick.

The other issue is that the first semi-public demo of operation without
input power (so-called self-sustained mode) corresponds to the use of a
much heavier ecat. This clearly makes heating from previously stored energy
more plausible. So I'm suspicious of the claim that the self-sustained mode
is sustained by energy production in the ecat (and nuclear energy
production particularly), when it seems to be explainable by energy storage
(or at most chemical energy production).

OK, still badly written, but I hope it's better.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards




On 11-11-15 12:10 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
The total reactor (the ecat) clearly participates in the heating of 
the fluid, so the comparison of the overall power density is relevant. 
The much lower (claimed) overall power density coincides with the 
first demonstration that was not supposed to rely on making steam for 
the power calculation. It also coincides with what Rossi calls 
self-sustaining. That's suspicious.


If I understand you, you've just said that the fact that the power 
density in the most recent test coincided with the power density in the 
"self-sustaining" mode is suspicious.  Why do you say that?  Or is that 
what you meant at all?  (I'm having trouble with the antecedent to "That".)


I understand the issue regarding steam (and "suspicious" isn't the word 
I'd use) but I don't see the connection between the self-sustaining mode 
and the 28 Oct overall power density.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards




On 11-11-15 11:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

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

  Rossi claims way more power and uses different materials.


No, he does not claim way more power. Adjusting for the mass of 
reactant it is about the same as Fleischmann and Pons boiling experiments.


Wait ... Does this mean that the Saturn V didn't actually produce "'way 
more power" than my Subaru's 4 cylinder engine, because the Saturn V 
weighed "'way more" than my car?

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards




On 11-11-15 10:31 AM, James Bowery wrote:
The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those 
who are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether 
Pons and Fleischmann had any validity to their claims.  This 
rhetorical maneuver denies the obvious Bayesian law of prior 
probability distribution:  If P&F's cold fusion claim was not valid 
then any subsequent claims of advances on P&F's cold fusion claim are 
likewise invalidated.


This is total nonsense.  Experimental results must be judged on their 
own merit, whether or not the reason for doing the experiments in the 
first place was actually well founded.


It would be *surprising* if P&F had really found nothing at all, and yet 
later workers, inspired by a mistaken belief that P&F really had 
something, discovered a real effect.  However, that's the most you can 
say -- if later experiments are done carefully (as many have been) and 
show a clear if somewhat elusive effect (as many have) then they must be 
accepted on their own merits, *regardless* of whether careful 
post-analysis of P&F's data shows a real anomaly or nothing but noise.


Laws of the sort to which you refer have, at best, the status of "rules 
of thumb".  It's like Occam's razor, which is also not a law -- someone 
on this list recently accused someone of "violating Occam's [law]", as 
though that invalidated what they were saying.  You can't violate it, 
because it's not a law:  It's merely a statistical assertion, which is 
that making larger numbers of assumptions which appear unlikely renders 
the conclusion less likely.


In fact, the reason for doing *any* Pd/D cold fusion experiments was not 
the positive results of P&F -- after all, what reason did P&F have for 
thinking they'd get anything but a blank result?  It was, rather, the 
observation that it was unreasonably difficult to calibrate a 
calorimeter using an electrolysis cell loaded with deuterium, whereas a 
cell loaded with plain hydrogen was typically better behaved.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

2011-11-15 Thread Harry Veeder

save your fingers too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zE1LbC4Fvs

harry

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:31 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
> A lot of the keyboard banging could be avoided if folks would simply preface
> their comments with 3 attributes:
>
> Business vs Science viewpoint
> Circumstantial vs Direct evidence
> Guilt vs Innocence presumption
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

2011-11-15 Thread Alan J Fletcher



At 07:31 AM 11/15/2011, James Bowery wrote:
The pseudoskeptics continually
assert that their criticism of those who are investigating Rossi's claims
has nothing to do with whether Pons and Fleischmann had any validity to
their claims.  This rhetorical maneuver denies the obvious Bayesian
law of prior probability distribution:  If P&F's cold fusion
claim was not valid then any subsequent claims of advances on P&F's
cold fusion claim are likewise invalidated.
Nice rant ...   I would point out that the only Bayesian
analysis I've seen is Cravens (on vortex) and Letts

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf  :
> Statistical and Bayesian studies show that observation of the
Fleischmann-Pons effect is correlated with
the criteria and that production of excess heat is a real physical
effect beyond a reasonable doubt.
ps On keyboards : I'm on my 6'th desktop system, but I still use the
keyboard from my 3rd .. an excellent clicky IBM KB-8923
keyboard.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
>>
>> Let me see if I understand.  You're making claims about the amount of
>> catalyst present in the cells?  Isn't this a bit like counting the angels
>> on the head of a pin?
>>
>
> Except that angels do not obey Archimedes' law and they are invisible.
>

Archimedes' principle is about buoyancy. Did they measure buoyancy on Oct
6?

>
> He doesn't have to. It is easy to estimate the volume of the cell.
>

But there is disagreement about what's at the bottom. And do we know how
much lead is used. I don't think it's so easy. Rossi could have made it
easy. But then we'd have nothing to speculate about.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>  When many experiments in different laboratories all show anomalous heat
> from metal hydrides, with Pd, Ni and Ti, most people say they are mutually
> supportive. That is why replications are considered valuable. The
> similarities seem obvious to me.
>

Sure there are similarities. But there are differences too. P&F and also
Arata claim it works with deuterium and not hydrogen. Rossi claims it works
with hydrogen, and if I remember correctly, it is quenched with deuterium.

But the main point is that the validity of P&F claims are not strictly
equivalent to that of Rossi's. P&F could be right, and Rossi could still be
wrong. P&F could be wrong, and I don't see how that would exclude the
possibility of H-Ni reactions. Such a claim would doing exactly what
skeptics are accused of: rejecting experimental results based on theory
(established by previous, different, if similar, experimental results).

  Rossi claims way more power and uses different materials.
>>
>
> No, he does not claim way more power. Adjusting for the mass of reactant
> it is about the same as Fleischmann and Pons boiling experiments.
>

He does claim way more power. You're arguing he does not claim more power
density. Scaling up has been a big problem for cold fusion, so claiming
more power is important, which of course, is why Rossi is getting so much
attention.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

2011-11-15 Thread David Roberson


Rossi has consistently maintained that only 1 core device was active during the 
test.  He states that normally there are 3 cores working as a group.

I have calculated  that these numbers support the expected power of 
approximately 10 kW per ECAT using data from the October 6 test.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Nov 15, 2011 12:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards





On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Mary Yugo  wrote:

 

His October 6 demo featured a much larger and heavier device which was poorly 
inspected and had a lower power density than ever before.




What do you mean by that? The power was 8 kW nominal. That is considerably 
higher than some previous demonstrations. 





Comparison of *claimed* power is difficult because, contrary to his earlier 
promise, neither Rossi, nor any of his associates, provided a report of the 
experiment. He was too busy. The closest thing we have is the report from Mats 
Lewan. Rossi referred several people to it on his blog, so presumably it has 
his blessing. Lewan said the output was 2 - 3 kW, which is 3 times lower than 
the claimed output of the much lighter ecat used in January. It's true, the 
claimed power from some of the mini ecats was also in this range. (I don't 
think the evidence even supports 2 - 3 kW, given the uncertainty introduced by 
the thermocouple placement.)



The cell was no bigger than before.



No dimensions of the cell were given. The device was 3 times heavier than the 
January device, which was considerably heavier than the mini ecats.





I don't get it.


Are you comparing the power to the total weight of the reactor? 



The total reactor (the ecat) clearly participates in the heating of the fluid, 
so the comparison of the overall power density is relevant. The much lower 
(claimed) overall power density coincides with the first demonstration that was 
not supposed to rely on making steam for the power calculation. It also 
coincides with what Rossi calls self-sustaining. That's suspicious.


 

As Alan Fletcher pointed out, that is like taking into account the weight of 
the shipping container in evaluating the Oct. 28 test.





The shipping container does not participate in the thermodynamics. The ecat 
does; all 100 kg of it.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>
> Right, that's what I meant. It is the part labeled "Reactor" in Higgins'
> diagram, which is not to scale:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Higgins%20Oct%206%2027kWreactorDiagram4.png
>
>
> That device is where the power leads and hydrogen gas leads went to. It is
> clearly the only source of heat, so it has to be the cell. Even if it is a
> fake cell, it is still the origin of the heat. Lead and steel walls do not
> spontaneously heat up.
>
>   If it was the cell, isn't it much larger than previous cells?  A factor
>> of three or more larger?
>>
>
> No, about the same. Plus there are three cells in this one. There is about
> the same amount of active Ni catalyst. That is the only meaningful ratio.
> The mass or volume of other stuff such as lead shielding is not relevant to
> power density.
>

You refer to Higgins above, who seems to have considered the geometry of
the ecat pretty carefully, yet he says in one of his reports:

"Still, after viewing photos of the interior cooling water cavity, only
about 10-20% of the mass can be identified and about 80-90kg of unknown
materials remain in the reactor core that could be, to a skeptical eye,
fuel for chemical reaction or physical storage (liquid metal)."

So, while the core mass would be interesting, I don't think we can know it.
The total power density, including the entire mass of the ecat is also
relevant, since it all heats up, and can store energy. And at least we have
some idea of the mass of the ecat, even if the output power is not well
known.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
>
>> His October 6 demo featured a much larger and heavier device which was
>> poorly inspected and had a lower power density than ever before.
>>
>
> What do you mean by that? The power was 8 kW nominal. That is considerably
> higher than some previous demonstrations.
>

Comparison of *claimed* power is difficult because, contrary to his earlier
promise, neither Rossi, nor any of his associates, provided a report of the
experiment. He was too busy. The closest thing we have is the report from
Mats Lewan. Rossi referred several people to it on his blog, so presumably
it has his blessing. Lewan said the output was 2 - 3 kW, which is 3 times
lower than the claimed output of the much lighter ecat used in January.
It's true, the claimed power from some of the mini ecats was also in this
range. (I don't think the evidence even supports 2 - 3 kW, given the
uncertainty introduced by the thermocouple placement.)

The cell was no bigger than before.
>

No dimensions of the cell were given. The device was 3 times heavier than
the January device, which was considerably heavier than the mini ecats.

> I don't get it.
>
> Are you comparing the power to the total weight of the reactor?
>

The total reactor (the ecat) clearly participates in the heating of the
fluid, so the comparison of the overall power density is relevant. The much
lower (claimed) overall power density coincides with the first
demonstration that was not supposed to rely on making steam for the power
calculation. It also coincides with what Rossi calls self-sustaining.
That's suspicious.

> As Alan Fletcher pointed out, that is like taking into account the weight
> of the shipping container in evaluating the Oct. 28 test.
>
>
The shipping container does not participate in the thermodynamics. The ecat
does; all 100 kg of it.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

2011-11-15 Thread James Bowery

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
> Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed?
>
>
> I can't ban anyone.
>

Then that ends that discussion.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
> Let me see if I understand.  You're making claims about the amount of
> catalyst present in the cells?  Isn't this a bit like counting the angels
> on the head of a pin?
>

Except that angels do not obey Archimedes' law and they are invisible.

   Far as I know, Rossi has never shown a naked core or cell much less
> catalyst!
>

He doesn't have to. It is easy to estimate the volume of the cell. The fins
don't have much volume. They wouldn't work if they did.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
> That's completely wrong-- both sides of it.  If P&F are correct, that does
> not mean that Rossi's entirely different claim is correct.
>

I do not know anyone else who says it is entirely different. When
many experiments in different laboratories all show anomalous heat from
metal hydrides, with Pd, Ni and Ti, most people say they are mutually
supportive. That is why replications are considered valuable. The
similarities seem obvious to me. I can't imagine why you think they have no
commonality. Do you suppose the mechanism that produces excess heat in Ni
is completely unrelated to the mechanism in Pd or Ti? Do you also think
that Arata's claims have nothing to do with Fleischmann's? (Arata says
that! He claims to be sui generis.)

>   Rossi claims way more power and uses different materials.
>

No, he does not claim way more power. Adjusting for the mass of reactant it
is about the same as Fleischmann and Pons boiling experiments. Some of them
went for months with steady state power. It is also about the same power
density as one of Italian Ni experiments at high temperature, but for the
life of me, I cannot recall which one.

The materials are different from F&P but as I said, Fleischmann was the
first to suggest the use of "spongy nickel" so he gets some credit for the
idea.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

>
>
>   If it was the cell, isn't it much larger than previous cells?  A factor
>> of three or more larger?
>>
>
> No, about the same. Plus there are three cells in this one. There is about
> the same amount of active Ni catalyst. That is the only meaningful ratio.
> The mass or volume of other stuff such as lead shielding is not relevant to
> power density.
>
>
Let me see if I understand.  You're making claims about the amount of
catalyst present in the cells?  Isn't this a bit like counting the angels
on the head of a pin?   Far as I know, Rossi has never shown a naked core
or cell much less catalyst!  He apparently showed some ash once to
Kullander and it was entirely unremarkable in any way that could be
revealed by the tests K reported.

I am not sure how important his all is anyway to the whole picture.  I was
just surprised that a much larger (yes, overall) device did not make much
more heat.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Mary Yugo  wrote:

> Yes, you did miss something. The box with fins was the cell. But I suspect
>> you knew that. Please do not play games -- if you did know that, do not
>> pretend you did not.
>>
>>
> I don't think so.  What I read was that the finned box was another heat
> exchanger with three cores within.
>

Right, that's what I meant. It is the part labeled "Reactor" in Higgins'
diagram, which is not to scale:

http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Higgins%20Oct%206%2027kWreactorDiagram4.png

>   I have no way to check that.
>

Of course you do. That device is where the power leads and hydrogen gas
leads went to. It is clearly the only source of heat, so it has to be the
cell. Even if it is a fake cell, it is still the origin of the heat. Lead
and steel walls do not spontaneously heat up.

>   If it was the cell, isn't it much larger than previous cells?  A factor
> of three or more larger?
>

No, about the same. Plus there are three cells in this one. There is about
the same amount of active Ni catalyst. That is the only meaningful ratio.
The mass or volume of other stuff such as lead shielding is not relevant to
power density.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

>
>
> We don't even know what the cell looked like.  Rossi did not show it.  All
>> we saw was a large machine and inside was another box with some fins.  Did
>> I miss something?
>>
>
> Yes, you did miss something. The box with fins was the cell. But I suspect
> you knew that. Please do not play games -- if you did know that, do not
> pretend you did not.
>
>
I don't think so.  What I read was that the finned box was another heat
exchanger with three cores within.  I have no way to check that.  If it was
the cell, isn't it much larger than previous cells?  A factor of three or
more larger?

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Mary Yugo  wrote:

> We don't even know what the cell looked like.  Rossi did not show it.  All
> we saw was a large machine and inside was another box with some fins.  Did
> I miss something?
>

Yes, you did miss something. The box with fins was the cell. But I suspect
you knew that. Please do not play games -- if you did know that, do not
pretend you did not.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:53 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed?
>

I don't mind because it helps make my case about some "believers" but is
this not against the rules?  Just curious.  No need to bother.  He makes
himself look bad.  Hey James, try answering the issues I raised.  You can,
can't you?

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

James Bowery  wrote:

Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed?


I can't ban anyone. This forum belongs to Bill Beaty. The beauty of e-mail
systems is that you can selectively ban individual people. If Mary Yugo
grates on you too much, just add her to your kill file.

Anything I think Yugo's latest comments are fine. I don't see "ridicule,
derision, scoffing, ad-hominem" or "Pathological Skepticism." She is right
that Rossi has not allowed properly done tests. I have pointed that out
dozens of times myself, and I told him that. He does not want to. He never
did want to. I do not know why. It sure makes him look suspicious.

Many things about Rossi make no sense. He is not a predictable person, and
not easy to understand. His motivations are obscure. He is complicated. His
business practices seem risky and ineffective to me. He does many things
that make him look bad, as I have often pointed out.

The thing is, the world is full of dysfunctional people who make themselves
look bad. Some of them make valuable contributions to society. You have to
look beyond their quirks. It isn't easy. You have to make an effort to see
things from their point of view, and to respect them. I don't mean you have
make exceptions for geniuses. I mean ordinary people too, who
are irascible, such as a plumber I just dealt with. I need his services and
he needs a job. I hope that his attitude problem does not prevent us from
making a deal.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

>
>
>
>> His October 6 demo featured a much larger and heavier device which was
>> poorly inspected and had a lower power density than ever before.
>>
>
> What do you mean by that? The power was 8 kW nominal. That is considerably
> higher than some previous demonstrations. The cell was no bigger than
> before.
>
> I don't get it.
>
> Are you comparing the power to the total weight of the reactor? As Alan
> Fletcher pointed out, that is like taking into account the weight of the
> shipping container in evaluating the Oct. 28 test.
>

We don't even know what the cell looked like.  Rossi did not show it.  All
we saw was a large machine and inside was another box with some fins.  Did
I miss something?  It's possible Rossi did not provide information to
support the calculation of an accurately determined power density.  Also,
the 8 kW, while I know you think is reliable, has been argued about by
knowledgeable people.   It may be much less.  As I noted before, a
blank/calibration run would have settled that issue for sure but as usual,
Rossi didn't allow it to be done.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

2011-11-15 Thread Rich Murray

disparaging name calling is evidence of exhaustion of sensible, evidence
and reason based, responses...

many here appreciate Mary Yugo's participation...

it is frustrating that the evidence is so messy, which, as many besides
Mary mention, is itself a large part of the pattern of the  evidence...

I imagine Rossi is sincerely delusional, constantly changing each demo to
create excess heat, avoiding runaway meltdowns from various artifacts
within the cores -- hence the steady decline in the claimed excess heat per
mass and per input electrical energy -- I vividly remember the moment when
he very casually showed the mild puff of water vapor from the end of the
black output hose to Krivit...


On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:53 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed?
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
>>
>> The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who
>>> are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and
>>> Fleischmann had any validity to their claims.  This rhetorical maneuver
>>> denies the obvious Bayesian law of prior probability distribution:  If
>>> P&F's cold fusion claim was not valid then any subsequent claims of
>>> advances on P&F's cold fusion claim are likewise invalidated.
>>>
>>
>> That's completely wrong-- both sides of it.  If P&F are correct, that
>> does not mean that Rossi's entirely different claim is correct.  Rossi
>> claims way more power and uses different materials.  Second, if P&F were
>> wrong, Rossi could still have found the golden goose.  Again, his method is
>> different from P&F's.
>>
>> The argument against Rossi is simply that it is very easy to test his
>> claim.  He has been told by many experts, including enthusiasts of CF like
>> Jed Rothwell, *exactly* how it needs to be done.  It's not a risky process,
>> needs not reveal his secrets and can be done cheaply and quickly.  And he
>> has *never* done it in nine months of fussing around with lots of people.
>> He has instead gone through one experiment after another based on
>> evaporation of steam.  His October 6 demo featured a much larger and
>> heavier device which was poorly inspected and had a lower power density
>> than ever before.  Each subsequent device seems to make less power per
>> volume and weight than the one before.   And his October 28 demo of the
>> megawatt plant was not properly witnessed by any of the guest scientists
>> and journalists.  Those are Rossi's problems.  The problems are not that
>> there are "pseusoskeptics" (whatever the heck that is) any more than the
>> problems are that there are clowns and snakes.   The problem is simply and
>> squarely Rossi and his unnecessarily evasive activities.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Mary Yugo  wrote:

> His October 6 demo featured a much larger and heavier device which was
> poorly inspected and had a lower power density than ever before.
>

What do you mean by that? The power was 8 kW nominal. That is considerably
higher than some previous demonstrations. The cell was no bigger than
before.

I don't get it.

Are you comparing the power to the total weight of the reactor? As Alan
Fletcher pointed out, that is like taking into account the weight of the
shipping container in evaluating the Oct. 28 test.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

2011-11-15 Thread James Bowery

Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed?

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
> The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who
>> are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and
>> Fleischmann had any validity to their claims.  This rhetorical maneuver
>> denies the obvious Bayesian law of prior probability distribution:  If
>> P&F's cold fusion claim was not valid then any subsequent claims of
>> advances on P&F's cold fusion claim are likewise invalidated.
>>
>
> That's completely wrong-- both sides of it.  If P&F are correct, that does
> not mean that Rossi's entirely different claim is correct.  Rossi claims
> way more power and uses different materials.  Second, if P&F were wrong,
> Rossi could still have found the golden goose.  Again, his method is
> different from P&F's.
>
> The argument against Rossi is simply that it is very easy to test his
> claim.  He has been told by many experts, including enthusiasts of CF like
> Jed Rothwell, *exactly* how it needs to be done.  It's not a risky process,
> needs not reveal his secrets and can be done cheaply and quickly.  And he
> has *never* done it in nine months of fussing around with lots of people.
> He has instead gone through one experiment after another based on
> evaporation of steam.  His October 6 demo featured a much larger and
> heavier device which was poorly inspected and had a lower power density
> than ever before.  Each subsequent device seems to make less power per
> volume and weight than the one before.   And his October 28 demo of the
> megawatt plant was not properly witnessed by any of the guest scientists
> and journalists.  Those are Rossi's problems.  The problems are not that
> there are "pseusoskeptics" (whatever the heck that is) any more than the
> problems are that there are clowns and snakes.   The problem is simply and
> squarely Rossi and his unnecessarily evasive activities.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards