Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > This theory has no bearing on the results. The theory may be wrong, but > the technique has been independently tested, and it works. > So they claim. But the demonstrations are not impressive. I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed papers on it, and in their presentations, the numbers bounce all over the place. They claim they have hours of output without input, but they can't demonstrate it by actually placing the ignited electrode in an isolated thermos to show the temperature increase. Instead, when 60 minutes did a show on Dardik's company, the best they could come up with for a visual was someone doing calculations in a notebook. Dardik seem no worse that many mainstream medical researchers. > Well, he's no worse than Andrew Wakefield, whose license to practice was revoked for dishonest falsification of results. He's no worse than other researchers who have been sanctioned for quackery. But he is demonstrably worse than researchers who have not. Isn't it interesting that by far the two most publicized experiments in cold fusion in the last decade are those by persons with backgrounds in fraud instead of physics.
RE: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
Yes, I would expect the pressure to increase slightly until the reactor reached steady state, but after that, and over the course of 6+ hours, if mass in NOT= mass out, then pressure would increase to dangerous levels (if not explosive) since the volume ratio between liquid water and water as vapor is ~1800. -m From: Robert Leguillon [mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:34 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi? Just a thought, FWIW: The pressure does increase, raising the boiling temperature, decreasing the primary pump output (remember it decreases with back-pressure) and eventually it leaks out of the top of the E-Cat. Remember the leaking seals? _ From: zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi? Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:29:17 -0800 Mass in must = mass out, or else pressure inside would steadily increase. From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 9:19 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi? I never found a way to make vapor carry more than 1/1 of its volume in liquid when any of its parts are sltighly off horizontal. So, I cannot convince myself that humidity meters would be useful at all. 2011/12/11 Mary Yugo On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Are you sure Puthoff was so skeptical to start with? He spent more than a decade spending public money to research paranormal even before meeting Yuri Geller. Neither Targ nor Puthoff were properly skeptical of Geller's ridiculous (and somewhat silly) claims which were simply sleight of hand ordinary stage magic. I did say they were gullible. What they were not were the things AG suggested (fools, idiots, liars or incompetents). Well... maybe they were a bit incompetent. So is someone who measures quality of steam with an HVAC humidity meter! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
Mary Yugo wrote: This sort of claim "Unique to the ET experiments is the use of a new > understanding of wave modulation. Rather than dc, dc + ac, dc pulsed or > bi-level perturbation, the waveforms being subjected (successfully) to test > by ET employ waves fractally nested in a specific non-linear manner > designed to stimulate intrinsic oscillatory processes across a wide range > of scales. . . . This theory has no bearing on the results. The theory may be wrong, but the technique has been independently tested, and it works. So do several other stimulation techniques such as lasers or a heat pulse. I suppose the theory might be right. There might even be some deep connection between the medical application and cold fusion. That will be for future researchers to discover. That has no bearing on the experimental proof that this technique stimulates the cold fusion reaction. I do not know whether Dardik's medical claims are valid. There is some evidence for them. Dardik has had success with some patients. But I know little about this, and biology is much more complicated than cold fusion, so I cannot judge. Whatever his faults may be, Dardik seem no worse that many mainstream medical researchers. Modern, mainstream medical techniques have often been found to be ineffective. Some were even been shown to be dangerous, such as hormone replacement in menopausal women. In my opinion, mainstream medical researchers accept a great deal of mythology uncritically, such as the existence of the placebo effect. I am no expert by any means, but based on the papers I have read on that subject, I do not think it exists. I am surprised so many doctors believe in it. "Evidence-based" and "outcome-based" medical research is still a novelty, and they do not seem good at it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
Just a thought, FWIW: The pressure does increase, raising the boiling temperature, decreasing the primary pump output (remember it decreases with back-pressure) and eventually it leaks out of the top of the E-Cat. Remember the leaking seals? From: zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi? Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:29:17 -0800 Mass in must = mass out, or else pressure inside would steadily increase… From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 9:19 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi? I never found a way to make vapor carry more than 1/1 of its volume in liquid when any of its parts are sltighly off horizontal. So, I cannot convince myself that humidity meters would be useful at all. 2011/12/11 Mary Yugo On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:Are you sure Puthoff was so skeptical to start with? He spent more than a decade spending public money to research paranormal even before meeting Yuri Geller. Neither Targ nor Puthoff were properly skeptical of Geller's ridiculous (and somewhat silly) claims which were simply sleight of hand ordinary stage magic. I did say they were gullible. What they were not were the things AG suggested (fools, idiots, liars or incompetents). Well... maybe they were a bit incompetent. So is someone who measures quality of steam with an HVAC humidity meter! -- Daniel Rocha - rjdanieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
Mass in must = mass out, or else pressure inside would steadily increase. From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 9:19 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi? I never found a way to make vapor carry more than 1/1 of its volume in liquid when any of its parts are sltighly off horizontal. So, I cannot convince myself that humidity meters would be useful at all. 2011/12/11 Mary Yugo On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Are you sure Puthoff was so skeptical to start with? He spent more than a decade spending public money to research paranormal even before meeting Yuri Geller. Neither Targ nor Puthoff were properly skeptical of Geller's ridiculous (and somewhat silly) claims which were simply sleight of hand ordinary stage magic. I did say they were gullible. What they were not were the things AG suggested (fools, idiots, liars or incompetents). Well... maybe they were a bit incompetent. So is someone who measures quality of steam with an HVAC humidity meter! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: > There are scientists that report much better results: > http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/204israel.html > citation: > - Run #64b gave 1500% excess heat over a duration of 80 hours with a total > excess energy of 4.6 Megajoules > > So, why do they all stare at Rossi and his poor COP and questionable > methods? > Dardik has a colorful Wikipedia entry. He was well regarded in medical circles at one time because of his development of a vascular procedure. However, his claims for therapy using his "wave energy" techniques has been termed quackery and his medical license has been revoked if you believe the Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Dardik This sort of claim "Unique to the ET experiments is the use of a new understanding of wave modulation. Rather than dc, dc + ac, dc pulsed or bi-level perturbation, the waveforms being subjected (successfully) to test by ET employ waves fractally nested in a specific non-linear manner designed to stimulate intrinsic oscillatory processes across a wide range of scales. I call these SuperWaves©. When properly implemented SuperWaves have been demonstrated to influence strongly processes in the realms of physics, physical chemistry, metallurgy and also in physiology." from the web page you cite, sounds like the sort of stuff one can read on Sterling Allan's web pages. Are there any credible and well written and done, scholarly papers about SuperWaves?
Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
I never found a way to make vapor carry more than 1/1 of its volume in liquid when any of its parts are sltighly off horizontal. So, I cannot convince myself that humidity meters would be useful at all. 2011/12/11 Mary Yugo > > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > >> Are you sure Puthoff was so skeptical to start with? He spent more than a >> decade spending public money to research paranormal even before meeting >> Yuri Geller. >> > > Neither Targ nor Puthoff were properly skeptical of Geller's ridiculous > (and somewhat silly) claims which were simply sleight of hand ordinary > stage magic. I did say they were gullible. What they were not were the > things AG suggested (fools, idiots, liars or incompetents). Well... maybe > they were a bit incompetent. So is someone who measures quality of steam > with an HVAC humidity meter! > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > Are you sure Puthoff was so skeptical to start with? He spent more than a > decade spending public money to research paranormal even before meeting > Yuri Geller. > Neither Targ nor Puthoff were properly skeptical of Geller's ridiculous (and somewhat silly) claims which were simply sleight of hand ordinary stage magic. I did say they were gullible. What they were not were the things AG suggested (fools, idiots, liars or incompetents). Well... maybe they were a bit incompetent. So is someone who measures quality of steam with an HVAC humidity meter!
Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
Are you sure Puthoff was so skeptical to start with? He spent more than a decade spending public money to research paranormal even before meeting Yuri Geller. 2011/12/11 Mary Yugo > > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat < > aussieguy.e...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Are you saying Levi, Celani, Kullander, Essen,Bianchi, McKubre,Focardi, >> etc and Rossi are ALL fools, idiots, liars or incompetents? If you throw >> mud at Rossi you throw mud at them as well. >> > > No. You're putting up a straw man. The people you mention may have been > bamboozled by being gullible. That doesn't make them what you suggested. > Scientists are very poor at detecting scams because while they may expect > and look for errors they are often insensitive about deception which they > fail to anticipate. That's how Puthoff and Targ, who are very bright and > not fools, liars or incompetents, were totally flummoxed by a mediocre > magician, Uri Geller, in a complicated but classical scam. If you are > unaware of that story, I'll be happy to provide links including the > unfortunate and now withdrawn article they wrote in the journal "Nature". > > The other point you miss is that Kullander and Essen are clear that they > want better testing from Rossi. And I am not convinced McKubre believes > Rossi without reservation either. > > > >> I suspect you have never had any contact with Rossi? I can tell you he is >> VERY conservative in his claims. He has NEVER asked for money up front. >> Always no money until my plant passes your test, which also meets his >> published specifications. There is no fraud or scam here. > > > If there is a scam on Rossi's part, when it comes to collecting money, > you're not the mark. Investors are. You're a decoy. He doesn't need or > expect your money. > > Where there is fraud or scam here is in the actions of deniers, some who >> refuse to accept the data of fellow scientists and professors and some who >> have an agenda to destroy Rossi and the E-Cat by any method or statement >> they can dream up like the power meter was placed in HOLD mode and NO one >> noticed it. > > > The power meter on hold was just a thought someone had. There innumerable > *other* ways to cheat given Rossi's sloppy demonstrations. More to the > point, if Rossi had something real and demonstrated it properly using the > methods suggested here and elsewhere ad nauseam, nobody could possibly > impede, much less stop his development. There is no way to suppress a > robust, working and reproducible cold fusion power generator -- none at all > in this day and age of information technology and rapid communication. > > > | The testing methods at the 15 Jan test were fine as they were in the > Kullander and Essen test as they were in the 6 Oct test and in the 28 Oct > test. It works as claimed. Time to accept it and to move on to trying to > understand the physics that is occurring. > > No they were not. Enthalpy measurement by heat of evaporation of water is > highly error prone as Grabowski et al clearly illustrated with their > paper. If you need the link again, I can find it for you. > > >> I'm not a scientists but I am very good at connecting the dots, in >> seeing patterns and systemic relationships before others see them. That is >> one way I make money. > > > Humans probably evolved a sensitive and rapid pattern recognition to evade > predators. As such, it's highly error prone in that it overestimates the > positive matches. In that sense, I suppose, you seem to be highly evolved. > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: > Are you saying Levi, Celani, Kullander, Essen,Bianchi, McKubre,Focardi, > etc and Rossi are ALL fools, idiots, liars or incompetents? If you throw > mud at Rossi you throw mud at them as well. > No. You're putting up a straw man. The people you mention may have been bamboozled by being gullible. That doesn't make them what you suggested. Scientists are very poor at detecting scams because while they may expect and look for errors they are often insensitive about deception which they fail to anticipate. That's how Puthoff and Targ, who are very bright and not fools, liars or incompetents, were totally flummoxed by a mediocre magician, Uri Geller, in a complicated but classical scam. If you are unaware of that story, I'll be happy to provide links including the unfortunate and now withdrawn article they wrote in the journal "Nature". The other point you miss is that Kullander and Essen are clear that they want better testing from Rossi. And I am not convinced McKubre believes Rossi without reservation either. > I suspect you have never had any contact with Rossi? I can tell you he is > VERY conservative in his claims. He has NEVER asked for money up front. > Always no money until my plant passes your test, which also meets his > published specifications. There is no fraud or scam here. If there is a scam on Rossi's part, when it comes to collecting money, you're not the mark. Investors are. You're a decoy. He doesn't need or expect your money. Where there is fraud or scam here is in the actions of deniers, some who > refuse to accept the data of fellow scientists and professors and some who > have an agenda to destroy Rossi and the E-Cat by any method or statement > they can dream up like the power meter was placed in HOLD mode and NO one > noticed it. The power meter on hold was just a thought someone had. There innumerable *other* ways to cheat given Rossi's sloppy demonstrations. More to the point, if Rossi had something real and demonstrated it properly using the methods suggested here and elsewhere ad nauseam, nobody could possibly impede, much less stop his development. There is no way to suppress a robust, working and reproducible cold fusion power generator -- none at all in this day and age of information technology and rapid communication. | The testing methods at the 15 Jan test were fine as they were in the Kullander and Essen test as they were in the 6 Oct test and in the 28 Oct test. It works as claimed. Time to accept it and to move on to trying to understand the physics that is occurring. No they were not. Enthalpy measurement by heat of evaporation of water is highly error prone as Grabowski et al clearly illustrated with their paper. If you need the link again, I can find it for you. > I'm not a scientists but I am very good at connecting the dots, in > seeing patterns and systemic relationships before others see them. That is > one way I make money. Humans probably evolved a sensitive and rapid pattern recognition to evade predators. As such, it's highly error prone in that it overestimates the positive matches. In that sense, I suppose, you seem to be highly evolved.
Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
Are you saying Levi, Celani, Kullander, Essen,Bianchi, McKubre,Focardi, etc and Rossi are ALL fools, idiots, liars or incompetents? If you throw mud at Rossi you throw mud at them as well. As for our venture, we need to wait for Rossi to post the technical specification for the high temperature version of the E-Cat before we present him with a purchase order. We will supply our thermal to Ac kW gen set and feed part of the output back into the E-Cat while running a light bank with the excess. To get payment the plant has to run in closed loop mode, with NO external power applied for 48 hours. Rossi has in principal agreed to this test with the reservation that as he is not supplying the heat to Ac conversion gear, he can't guarantee the Ac output, which is fair enough. I suspect you have never had any contact with Rossi? I can tell you he is VERY conservative in his claims. He has NEVER asked for money up front. Always no money until my plant passes your test, which also meets his published specifications. There is no fraud or scam here. Where there is fraud or scam here is in the actions of deniers, some who refuse to accept the data of fellow scientists and professors and some who have an agenda to destroy Rossi and the E-Cat by any method or statement they can dream up like the power meter was placed in HOLD mode and NO one noticed it. Like NO one would have looked at the input power meter or noticed the display said HOLD and that it never changed a single digit for 4.5 hours. Just unbelievable what some non engineers deniers dream up to support their denier agendas. The testing methods at the 15 Jan test were fine as they were in the Kullander and Essen test as they were in the 6 Oct test and in the 28 Oct test. It works as claimed. Time to accept it and to move on to trying to understand the physics that is occurring. Here I agree with Larsen that a multi discipline approach is needed to try to understand what is happening, why transmutations are occurring and why there are no emitted gamma radiations. Note I said emitted. Larsen and others suggest they are being generated but are being internally absorbed and thermalized. Note Celani did say he observed a short burst of gamma as the reactor first fired up and again as it shut down as well as he observed a 50% random increase above background gamma radiation when the reactor was running. This would match with the gamma being internally thermalized and that sometimes at the start and shutdown, the internal thermalization process is not as fully functional as it is when the reactor is running and a few gammas get externally released as well as the internal thermalization process not being 100% effective. I'm not a scientists but I am very good at connecting the dots, in seeing patterns and systemic relationships before others see them. That is one way I make money. On 12/11/2011 11:58 PM, Vorl Bek wrote: The circus is the continual refusal by deniers that call over 1 year of published peer reviewed (Levi, Kullander, Celani, etc) test data rubbish when it is the deniers that are making up rubbish claims. You want science? Wait until Rossi sells me a E-Cat and you can give it your all, that is up to my warranty limits. If you are so sure Rossi has the goods, why don't you pay him the money now - none of that escrow nonsense - in return for a 10 percent discount, or for putting you at the top of the waiting list - or both?
Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
Vorl Bek wrote: > > If you are so sure Rossi has the goods, why don't you pay him the > money now - none of that escrow nonsense - in return for a 10 > percent discount, or for putting you at the top of the waiting > list - or both? > Did Rossi make those offers? Are you negotiating with him? Why are you telling AG how to run his business? Did he ask for your advice in this matter? If you are a business consultant I suggest you keep the conversation confidential by direct e-mail. It seems inappropriate here. If you are a business consultant, you might want to re-think the notion that an escrow account for a large purchase is "nonsense." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
Peter Heckert wrote: There are scientists that report much better results: > http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/204israel.html > citation: > - Run #64b gave 1500% excess heat over a duration of 80 hours with a total > excess energy of 4.6 Megajoules > Dardik's results are impressive, but they are not not "much better" than Rossi's for several reasons: Dardik et al. cannot reproduce their reaction as often or as easily. They have far less control, as you see in the graphs here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIultrasonic.pdf Output varies tremendously. It would be impossible to scale this reaction up to kilowatt levels. It might produce nothing, or it might suddenly produce a large burst of heat and explode, the way Mizuno's cell did, and several others. Output as a function of input varies tremendously, and the duration of heat after death is uncontrolled. The materials are much more expensive than Rossi's, and more difficult to make. The device is much more complicated, delicate and it requires much more overhead for ultrasound generation. > So, why do they all stare at Rossi and his poor COP and questionable > methods? > The methods are not questionable. They are imprecise, and somewhat crude. Rossi's s/n ratio is better than Dardik. Rossi's reaction can be confirmed by sense of touch alone, without instruments, without even measuring input power (because it is physically impossible to input this much with these wires). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
> The circus is the continual refusal by deniers that call over 1 > year of published peer reviewed (Levi, Kullander, Celani, etc) > test data rubbish when it is the deniers that are making up > rubbish claims. You want science? Wait until Rossi sells me a > E-Cat and you can give it your all, that is up to my warranty > limits. If you are so sure Rossi has the goods, why don't you pay him the money now - none of that escrow nonsense - in return for a 10 percent discount, or for putting you at the top of the waiting list - or both?
Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
What circus? Rossi brought a Door Knob and stove pipe style reactor to the university for testing. Set it up with their test equipment and advise. Did the test the way they desired, as the university people were in the room (like Celani who tried to get / steal a spectrum) and measured around 12 kWs out for 400 Watts in. Then Rossi did another for the Swedish scientists, the 6 Oct and 28 Oct demos and said No More Public Tests. He paid his dues, allowed the professors and scientists to test his Black Box and then published their findings. The tests they did left no doubt. They tested it properly. Power input was measured every 8 seconds and temperature every 2 seconds. Steam quality was tested by an expert and his report published. The circus is the continual refusal by deniers that call over 1 year of published peer reviewed (Levi, Kullander, Celani, etc) test data rubbish when it is the deniers that are making up rubbish claims. You want science? Wait until Rossi sells me a E-Cat and you can give it your all, that is up to my warranty limits. On 12/11/2011 11:27 PM, Vorl Bek wrote: There are scientists that report much better results: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/204israel.html citation: - Run #64b gave 1500% excess heat over a duration of 80 hours with a total excess energy of 4.6 Megajoules So, why do they all stare at Rossi and his poor COP and questionable methods? Because Rossi turned it from science into a circus, with the videos and blog and interviews. The mass media has mostly had enough sense to reserve judgement until he shows some proof, but fortunately, fan sites like this one keep the entertainment going.
Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
I think more his +10 kW outputs with a few 100 watts in is hard to question and that is which causes the stares and envy. As for questionable methods, the 15 Jan test was done under the supervision of the university professors and scientists. As Rossi said in the video, we did the tests as they made suggestions and looked over our shoulders. Sort of real time peer reviewed testing. If you then call Rossi's methods questionable as used at the 15 Jan test, do you also call into question all the scientists and professors methods that worked with Rossi on the test? On 12/11/2011 11:06 PM, Peter Heckert wrote: There are scientists that report much better results: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/204israel.html citation: - Run #64b gave 1500% excess heat over a duration of 80 hours with a total excess energy of 4.6 Megajoules So, why do they all stare at Rossi and his poor COP and questionable methods? Peter
Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
> There are scientists that report much better results: > http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/204israel.html > citation: > - Run #64b gave 1500% excess heat over a duration of 80 hours > with a total excess energy of 4.6 Megajoules > > So, why do they all stare at Rossi and his poor COP and > questionable methods? Because Rossi turned it from science into a circus, with the videos and blog and interviews. The mass media has mostly had enough sense to reserve judgement until he shows some proof, but fortunately, fan sites like this one keep the entertainment going.
Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
Why? Because Rossi has apparently cracked the reliability issue. I can tell you he is being super conservative about the COP number. The 1 MW test had virtually NO input power. close to infinite COP, 5.5 hours of heat after death until finally the customer's acceptance engineer said "I have seen enough". It is time to warp and pack and ship it to the US military research entities US test facility. On 12/11/2011 11:06 PM, Peter Heckert wrote: There are scientists that report much better results: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/204israel.html citation: - Run #64b gave 1500% excess heat over a duration of 80 hours with a total excess energy of 4.6 Megajoules So, why do they all stare at Rossi and his poor COP and questionable methods? Peter
