[Vo]:E-Cat general observations
My very first post here, so be gentle. By way of introduction, I was on Usenet back in the PF days and made some money off palladium futures - I mention this to indicate that I've been in this space before. It seems so very long ago. I used to post with the moniker LordSnooty back then. I certainly remember Jed Rothwell's excellent posts from those days. So, some general comments: 1. I don't see how either the energy and power density can be hoaxed, especially with continuous run times of over 100 days. 2. I don't have a problem with this verification being done at Rossi's facility, because he doesn't want people carting off the device and reverse-engineering the catalyst (I'm guessing palladium :) and the drive waveform. Nevertheless, this wasn't a pure third party verification. 3. You'll notice that the plot for Plutonium has the axes erroneously swapped. 4. The technology is green, but not rechargeable (except by inserting a new cell). This makes it a razor and razor blades type economic proposition. Nickel and hydrogen are dirt cheap and plentiful resources. 5. VASIMR together with this seems to make a decent combination for a future intrasolar space drive. 6. The missing test piece is electrical output. Same engineering issue as with any nuclear reactor; to turn heat into electricity. Andrew Palfreyman
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations
Oops typo: should have been over 100 hours - Original Message - From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:14 AM Subject: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations My very first post here, so be gentle. By way of introduction, I was on Usenet back in the PF days and made some money off palladium futures - I mention this to indicate that I've been in this space before. It seems so very long ago. I used to post with the moniker LordSnooty back then. I certainly remember Jed Rothwell's excellent posts from those days. So, some general comments: 1. I don't see how either the energy and power density can be hoaxed, especially with continuous run times of over 100 days. 2. I don't have a problem with this verification being done at Rossi's facility, because he doesn't want people carting off the device and reverse-engineering the catalyst (I'm guessing palladium :) and the drive waveform. Nevertheless, this wasn't a pure third party verification. 3. You'll notice that the plot for Plutonium has the axes erroneously swapped. 4. The technology is green, but not rechargeable (except by inserting a new cell). This makes it a razor and razor blades type economic proposition. Nickel and hydrogen are dirt cheap and plentiful resources. 5. VASIMR together with this seems to make a decent combination for a future intrasolar space drive. 6. The missing test piece is electrical output. Same engineering issue as with any nuclear reactor; to turn heat into electricity. Andrew Palfreyman
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.htmlMotl's critique seems to hinge on the actual output power being far less than the estimate.He asserts that the actual emissivity is far less than unity, and so it's reasonable to supposethat the actual output power is perhaps even less than the input power.Doesn't he have this backwards? At constant output power, as the emissivity reduces, output powerwill apparently reduce, meaning that what is measured is progressively less than what's actually output.Andrew
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
An important issue is how one could possibly hoax such measured values of input and output energy and power densities. Since the supply powering the E-cat is off-limits, they measure only wall power. That means that one could secrete a discrete power source inside the supply box, and its power output would evade measurement. That's the input hoax. The output hoax might consist of secreting a nuclear power source, appropriately shielded, inside the other inaccessible part of the apparatus; the E-cat itself. So, that's the how of it, and it's qualitative. Can we fill this in quantitatively? Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Doesn't he have this backwards? At constant output power, as the emissivity reduces, output powerwill apparently reduce, meaning that what is measured is progressively less than what's actually output. Yes, he has it backwards. Emissivity of 1 means the power is lowest. As emissivity declines toward zero, power increases. The IR camera software computes temperature based on the emissivity you enter into the software. In the second test, they entered the actual number, rather than 1 (worst case). They confirmed the number was correct by comparing the IR camera software output to the actual temperature of the reactor surface measured with a thermocouple. What's not to like? What else would anyone have them do? IR cameras are widely used and reliable. It isn't like these people invented them for this purpose. Some people do invent special purpose instruments for cold fusion. That does not usually end well. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:substitutes?
Back in the day, Dennis, I turned $10K into $150K in a matter of weeks. Palladium futures! Andrew - Original Message - From: DJ Cravens To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:19 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:substitutes? Oh and notice gold is down, Ni up and most metal are flat today. It is though someone out there is selling some gold to buy Ni and Ni stocks. Just a guess. Dennis -- From: djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:substitutes? Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:13:51 -0600 notice the jump in Nickel stocks... example NILSY up about 1.5% today. I wonder. Dennis
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with additional power. There's another way to perpetrate the output hoax, and that's to secrete infrared lasers in the ceiling and heat the device up remotely. It's alleged by Mary Yugo that the rest of the measurement instruments were assembled by his close associate and personal friend, G. Levi. I have no way of assessing the veracity of that statement; how does she know that? See comments here http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Since the supply powering the E-cat is off-limits, they measure only wall power. That means that one could secrete a discrete power source inside the supply box, and its power output would evade measurement. That's the input hoax. Mary Yugu suggested this, at Forbes. Unless she or some other skeptic can describe a method of fooling a modern, high quality power meter I think she has no case. The output hoax might consist of secreting a nuclear power source, appropriately shielded, inside the other inaccessible part of the apparatus; the E-cat itself. Bianchini's meters would have detected this. Even a Pu-238 reactor will trigger his sensors. Pu-238 costs fantastic sums of money and civilians such as Rossi are not allowed to buy it. It would take about 1.4 kg of Pu-238 to produce this much heat. The U.S. DoE is spending $1.5 billion to produce 150 kg of the stuff. That's $10 million per kg, so this would cost Rossi $14 million if he bought it on the black market. I guess he could steal it himself from highly secure DoE bomb factories that hold 50,000 drum cans of toxic radioactive waste. I doubt he is capable of that. I think we should rule out this kind of thing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat in the press
http://pesn.com/2013/05/21/9602321_E-Cat_Validation_Creates_More_Questions/ - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:41 PM Subject: [Vo]:E-Cat in the press http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas Andrew
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's small. A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with additional power. What sort of internal power source? A generator? That would noisy and obvious. A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right. A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 W. They would see it. Do you have anything else in mind? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - just recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; you don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a jaundiced eye. Rossi is not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be prepared to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly crabby sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be distasteful to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here, and we are all grown-ups. Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long resistors could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle as the lasers, but just a different frequency. And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of all. Just ask Geller and Taylor. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's small. A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with additional power. What sort of internal power source? A generator? That would noisy and obvious. A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right. A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 W. They would see it. Do you have anything else in mind? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
I could have predicted that, Giovanni, which is why I, having raised the issue here, chose not to do that. He is an egomaniac, and you attempted to beard the lion in its own den. The man has little integrity, quite frankly. However, he is IMHO a quite talented physicist. Andrew - Original Message - From: Giovanni Santostasi To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Motl is deleting my comment, lol. Funny Giovanni On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post): I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon (1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating the temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives temperature as a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the setting of the camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating the temperature by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then when you use the reading of 500 K to calculate the power using Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many areas) reintroducing the same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but because the temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is all right and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower limit of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like convection). On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments). Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device, observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency, overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a single thing I wish they had checked but did not. In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into account. Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure there was no hanky-panky. They wrote: The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements themselves. They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of chemistry by both the mass of the cell
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Geller had collaborators. Did you ever hear about them? - I doubt it. Look, there's big money involved here. We are human. Do I really need to state the obvious? We are better served by eliminating possible hoaxes by deductive reasoning than we are by closing our eyes tight and wishing for Utopia. What's not right is to a priori refuse to discuss the possibility of a hoax. In my view that's simply infantile. Andrew - Original Message - From: Mark Gibbs To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: There's another way to perpetrate the output hoax, and that's to secrete infrared lasers in the ceiling and heat the device up remotely. Lasers?! Don't you think that seems just a little farfetched? And it raises, once again, as do many of the proposed ways the tests could have been rigged, the question of why go to so much trouble? OK, let's say it's all a hoax ... how much longer can the hoax continue? I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting harder to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax in science history and would require a lot of people to keep it going and they'd have to keep quiet. Given that you can't get four people to agree on how to split a lunch bill, a conspiracy seems unlikely and Rossi as the sole perpetrator seems just as improbable. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply box. You might think that this immediately eliminates the battery hoax theory, but it turns out that the power measuring equipment would be insensitive to anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could certainly be snuck in there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter notes, to using frequencies other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to the device. I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe it (let alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in a metal box of independent design to foil output hoaxing, and run for weeks on end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the controls stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him. Best, Andrew Palfreyman - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - just recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; you don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a jaundiced eye. Rossi is not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be prepared to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly crabby sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be distasteful to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here, and we are all grown-ups. Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long resistors could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle as the lasers, but just a different frequency. And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of all. Just ask Geller and Taylor. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's small. A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with additional power. What sort of internal power source? A generator? That would noisy and obvious. A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right. A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 W. They would see it. Do you have anything else in mind? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
You probably mean me. Everything I say is my own private opinion and I do not represent any other persons or organisations or institutions, nor am I affiliated with such. I am an engineer with a physics degree and am currently unemployed. Were I acting per pro others, I would have made that clear. What do you think of my hoax theories? Andrew - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Whew. The paper which started this conversation indicates the scientists involved and their academic affiliation. I would like to caution some people, you know who you are, that this particular list, Vortex-l is widely read. Further caution, I have seen many statements which could be considered libelous. If you wish to speculate, be sure to include the phrase in my opinion. While it will only provide a modicum of protection if these individuals and their institutions are incensed by these statements, it at least, does allow you to plead ignorance.
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
The thing about a successful hoax, Terry, is that it is the investigating scientists who are fooled. Nobody is suggesting the sort of grand conspiracy you mention. Unfortunately, the door is left wide open for speculations of bamboozlement, because precautions against them are not discussed in the paper. It would have behoved the august scientists of Sweden and Italy to have closed the door on such possibilities, both in terms of convincing themselves, and proclaiming such explicitly in their paper. Perhaps good taste forbad them from appearing to be exercising bad manners towards their host and his apparatus. Or perhaps the possibility that they were being taken for a ride simply did not occur to them at a level of sophistication sufficient to warrant closer inspection. We cannot know unless we interview them personally. I note your temerity about this topic. Andrew - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Personally, I would avoid any implication that these scientists nor their institutions are implicit in a hoax. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: What do you think of my hoax theories? Well, when I look for a hoax, I also ask myself Where is the benefit?
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
I am with Mark. Kevin needs to grow some ethics. Andrew - Original Message - From: Mark Gibbs To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Mark: Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
This is good to know. Can you specifically talk about the clamp-on ammeter probes and their frequency response? What is your understanding here? For example, if there exists a HF power component, could it be missed by using these clamp-on probes? I have to ask these questions because the paper does not address them. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of all. Just ask Geller and Taylor. I have corresponded with Randi. He does not understand the first thing about cold fusion or experimental science. He has no idea how anyone could pull of a hoax of this nature, any more than Yugo does. This is not case of fooling people. You have to fool instruments and video cameras. I am sick of hearing about Geller. He fooled scientists when he did a sleight of hand trick. That was him doing his own business -- stage magic. Not an experiment, and not something that scientists would know anything about. They have no training in this. They did not use instruments. As I have said before, finding experimental errors is FAR more difficult than finding deliberate fraud. There is no method of fraud one-tenth as subtle as the problems Mother Nature throws at you in an experiment. These researchers have spent a lifetime teasing out experimental errors. The people who make power analyzers have dealt with every possible waveform and condition. They know what electricity can and cannot do. Rossi has not discovered some condition that the instrument manufacturers never seen in the last 140 years. Everything that can go wrong with electric power has gone wrong. The instruments are designed to find problems. That is what they are for. The professors do not have to think about this any more than they have to think about emissivity. They just fill in the data on the screen and confirm that the computed temperature matches the thermocouple reading. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Dave, That would be great if they joined in. It's not that I think there was foul play so much as, going by what's been written in the paper, there's nothing to suggest that they guarded against it. So, for example, there's no frequency spectrum published on the input power feed. The paper raises more questions than answers. Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it. Best, Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew, I would be very surprised to find that these highly educated and qualified scientists would fall for a power input trick. They had many days to uncover anything of that nature. Has anyone checked into the specifications of the instruments used by them to see if this were even the least bit likely? It would be great if some of these scientists would join the discussion and set aside your concerns. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply box. You might think that this immediately eliminates the battery hoax theory, but it turns out that the power measuring equipment would be insensitive to anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could certainly be snuck in there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter notes, to using frequencies other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to the device. I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe it (let alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in a metal box of independent design to foil output hoaxing, and run for weeks on end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the controls stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him. Best, Andrew Palfreyman - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - just recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; you don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a jaundiced eye. Rossi is not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be prepared to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly crabby sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be distasteful to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here, and we are all grown-ups. Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long resistors could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle as the lasers, but just a different frequency. And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of all. Just ask Geller and Taylor. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's small. A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with additional power. What sort of internal power source? A generator? That would noisy and obvious. A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right. A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 W. They would see it. Do you have anything else in mind? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world. Andrew, infrared lasers? Really. Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would create spot heating of the test device. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority of the power is being pumped at 200 Hz (arbitrary numbers), and the probes are 40 dB down at 200 Hz Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it. I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant. They measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form generator. Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire system. It does not matter what the power supplies did. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
I think you're right. Would you be interested in their response? I have said several times that I've read the paper. Nevertheless, it seems time for another reading. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), Not at all. but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority . . . I suggest you read the paper and find out if it has enough information to eliminate this possibility. If it does not, write a paper describing a potential problem. Send it to the authors, and see if they checked for the problem. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
The remaining output hoax possibility is beamed RF into the antenna resistors. Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the waveform generator - that's off limits. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers. Can you imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path radiation caused serious injuries? This is far outside the realm of reality. The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be set aside with the proper scrutiny. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world. Andrew, infrared lasers? Really. Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would create spot heating of the test device. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
I'm not getting anything like the buzz I experienced in 1989 on sci.physics.fusion, I must say. I suspect it's because I'm older! Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: I think you're right. Would you be interested in their response? Of course. I am sure we would all be interested. I have said several times that I've read the paper. Nevertheless, it seems time for another reading. I find I must read a paper like this several time, and I have to look up concepts I am unfamiliar with. It sure is easier to do that than it was before we had the Internet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Dave, Good call on the metal screening. I'll tell Harry to call off the mutant and ill-tempered sea bass :) I started out this morning very gung-ho about it all, and as the day has progressed, and I read more peripheral material, I ended up with more open questions than answers. I think of myself as open-minded but strongly analytic too. I have been running with the Woodward crowd for over 15 years, and if that isn't fringe and speculative physics, I don't know what is. I couldn't put a number on how convinced I am. It's not 0% and neither is it 100%. Let's say I'm 50/50 for now. The fence is uncomfortable, but at least a path to the resolution of open issues appears to exist. I can't say fairer than that. If I have an agenda, I'd describe it as the fervent desire for this thing to work! Best, Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem The ECAT is made of metal if I recall correctly which would not allow RF to penetrate to activate the resistor antennas. Some might be able to follow the wiring into the device, but the level would have to be quite large which would most likely demolish the instrument readings. Andrew, are you approaching this from the point of view of a skeptic that absolutely does not believe that the ECAT works? If so, I can understand why you are stretching so far. Could you be convinced that Rossi actually has a working device? Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem The remaining output hoax possibility is beamed RF into the antenna resistors. Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the waveform generator - that's off limits. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers. Can you imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path radiation caused serious injuries? This is far outside the realm of reality. The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be set aside with the proper scrutiny. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world. Andrew, infrared lasers? Really. Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would create spot heating of the test device. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Daniel, I'm misunderstanding this reference of yours to the control with the empty reactor. If there's a gizmo, then I assume it's either in the power supply or the waveform generator. I suspect you're making a serious point that I'm missing here. Andrew - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem But that would mean another device, a circuit, which modified the input when they compared with the empty reactor. 2013/5/21 Andrew andrew...@att.net I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority of the power is being pumped at 200 Hz (arbitrary numbers), and the probes are 40 dB down at 200 Hz Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it. I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant. They measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form generator. Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire system. It does not matter what the power supplies did. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Interesting. To quote from the spec Frequency range in automatic mode 45 to 65Hz / 0.1Hz / 0.1Hz The frequency characteristics of the probes is unknown, but presumably they match this roughly. Andrew - Original Message - From: Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem FYI (To anyone): Here's a link to Info on the PCE Instruments PCE-830-1 Power Analyzer : http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm - Mark
Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Daniel Rocha wrote: They tested a dummy device, that is, an empty reactor, which showed a supposedly correct IR emission. The input was the same. and this is important here. I'm not done thinking about this. Let's say that there's a covert HF power feed, for example. For Daniel's statement to make sense simultaneously in this case, somebody would need to creep about and flip a secret switch. That's too rich a conspiracy for my blood. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem The meter appears to have important limitations. We need to see data showing the actual input waveform in real time in order to be confident that the measurements are accurate. I assume that the scientists performed this test during their evaluation. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 11:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem From: Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:15:19 PM FYI (To anyone): Here's a link to Info on the PCE Instruments PCE-830-1 Power Analyzer http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm Oh-oh no mention of DC at all. That Bryce fellow is going to have a field day!
Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
My sense is that Rossi forbade them using a scope on the power feed in order to protect proprietary drive waveform information. I really need to re-read that paper now. If they were only allowed to use this power meter, all sorts of shenanigans might be possible. Only theoretically of course :) Andrew - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem User manual is at : http://www.industrial-needs.com/manual/power-anlayser-pce-830.pdf Again, no mention of DC. - Original Message - From: Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:15:19 PM FYI (To anyone): Here's a link to Info on the PCE Instruments PCE-830-1 Power Analyzer http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm Oh-oh no mention of DC at all. That Bryce fellow is going to have a field day!
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
If we're going all Bayesian on this, we'd need to calculate some priors. It's my impression that generally speaking it's not easy to bribe a high-ranking scientist, and not easy to bribe Swedish people, so as far as bribing a high-ranking Swedish scientist, I'm going to say not very likely :). That takes care of #1. Rossi did not have a direct hand in this testing, but indirectly he did, via his pal Professor Levi, who was on-site at Rossi's facility where the testing was performed. There were some off-limit constraints on the operation of the tests. What precisely these were is not entirely clear. So #2 should read Rossi and close associates really. #3 is ridiculous I think. I don't see much evidence of incompetency in general. #5 might be Aliens/The Illuminati/The Secret Government made him do it but I didn't say that. And never would, actually. I think it's between #2 (modified) and #4. Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting harder to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax in science history and would require a lot of people to keep it going and they'd have to keep quiet. Putting my lateral thinking cap on, I see these four possibilities: 1.. Rossi and the third-party testers are in cahoots, and we have been punked. 2.. Rossi, like the Amazing Randi, has pulled off a fantastic magic trick and fooled everyone, including the authors of the recent paper. 3.. Rossi and all involved in the testing are unqualified, and what was seen was powered solely by the input power, resulting in a COP 1, and the observations and conclusions were inaccurate and flawed. 4.. Rossi is operating something that probably has at least ~2.6+ COP. Anyone care to attempt to calculate the conditional probabilities of each of these four scenarios, given that we know the affiliations of the people involved in the testing? For the lateral thinkers out there -- is there a fifth or sixth possibility that has not been mentioned? It seems to me that (1) is vanishingly small, and (2) and (3) seem far-fetched, although not as much as (1). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
And I'll excerpt a comment Rossi has been challenged to do a test where the power levels in all three wires supplying the apparatus are measured and he has refused. I have quickly skimbled the paper and the power measurement section makes no mention of measuring the power levels in all the cores connected up. Given Rossi's history of fraud (Google it but there is a failed thermoelectric generator using waste heat and a failed oil from waste firm) one has to take him with a very large pinch of salt. So - about these premier scientists who investigated and tested this device. They are not looking very good at the moment, are they? The fly in the ointment is that the calibration run worked. Andrew - Original Message - From: Patrick Ellul To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:06 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Just adding a link to the register article. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/22/e_cat_test_claims_success_yet_again/ On 22/05/2013 5:55 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote: I'm wondering if Levi and al checked the quality of the electrical power! On the topic regarding electrical measurements the report says that the measurements were done with a PCE-830. The PCE-830 monitored the 3 phases only and computed the energy consumption with data collected on the 3 phases. The PCE-830 can be fooled if the setup isn't as expected. For example, the ground might be not the ground but a hidden phase. That's why they should have checked: - The quality of the ground - The quality of the 3 phases regarding the neutral or between phases - The quality of the neutral (if present and used) - The quality of the 50 Hz of the power line That check will remove every concern about electrical input. Maybe they did the check but there is no mention about that in the report of Levi and al. To whom may I address this concern at the Levi's team and how ? Arnaud -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] Sent: mercredi 22 mai 2013 09:00 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem So in a sense the elimination of fakes is cumulative. Bear in mind that when Rossi says he has something he tends to follow up on it. (Maybe not exactly as promised, but close to it). Let's accept for the moment the OUTPUT analysis : it DOES produce the documented COP. Electrical INPUT is a two-edged sword. It can be measured to 6 decimal places .. IF you do it correctly, but if you don't cover ALL bases you might miss something. (eg an AC-only meter might not notice DC, or HF AC beyond its spec). But Rossi says he has a GAS-POWERED eCat. I believe him: ANY source of temperature stimulus will do. It's rather hard to modulate/cheat a GAS meter, though the actual INPUT power delivered might only be known to ONE decimal place.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
The Abstract of the paper characterises this instrument as a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. I'm not seeing that. However, it also says The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental set-up without the active charge present in the E-CatHT . In this case, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from the electric input. That implies that there's no problem with the input power measurement, does it not? The only way out is for someone to flip a magic switch between calibration and measurement runs, such that extra power was input during the measurement run; power that was invisible to this meter (HF or DC). That's too bizarre to contemplate. All it would take would be for one of the Italians to casually walk around the back of the big blue box and surreptitiously do that. Of course, it's not an accusation, Terry :) - it's simply a possibility. p15 states: the TRIAC power supply has been replaced by a control circuit having three-phase power input and single-phase output, mounted within a box, the contents of which were not available for inspection, inasmuch as they are part of the industrial trade secret. I find it hard to believe that simply viewing the contents of a box would be off limits. Perhaps it contained 100 Kg of batteries, which is roughly sufficient to produce 500 W for 116 hours. Look at the two huge blue boxes in Fig. 16. Why would they be off-limits? You can guess the nature of a proprietary waveform by looking into a box? This really stinks. p16 states: The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a non-falsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements themselves. I assume that means on the wall power side. The way this is phrased is suspect to me, because the wording is so vague and ambiguous. It doesn't seem to be worthy of a scientist. Best, Andrew - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem User manual is at : http://www.industrial-needs.com/manual/power-anlayser-pce-830.pdf Again, no mention of DC. - Original Message - From: Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:15:19 PM FYI (To anyone): Here's a link to Info on the PCE Instruments PCE-830-1 Power Analyzer http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm Oh-oh no mention of DC at all. That Bryce fellow is going to have a field day!
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
It's steel (with different steel end caps), inside corundum ceramic, inside silicon nitride ceramic, with a coat of paint. Andrew - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The ECAT is made of metal if I recall correctly I thought the first test used a ceramic. Darn, gotta read it again.
[Vo]: The marketing model
Does anyone feel that the sales and marketing model for this technology is a little odd? Why would one not immediately try and flood the market with these devices? Rossi has a head start on the competition, and there's no reason why he cannot maintain his lead even after they torn it apart and reverse-engineered it. Andrew
Re: [Vo]: The marketing model
How so? In recent interviews he's touted the great stability of the 360 deg C design (intended to interface with the Siemens thermoelectric gear). Also, he's got these purported 1 MW units composed of over 100 devices. According to him they are built, tested and delivered. According to one source (I forget, sorry, I read a lot today) nothing has been delivered anywhere. If they're real, then he knows how to build the devices, by his own admission. Andrew - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 5:33 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The marketing model Maybe that's because that he doesn't know how to make the device reliably? 2013/5/22 Andrew andrew...@att.net Does anyone feel that the sales and marketing model for this technology is a little odd? Why would one not immediately try and flood the market with these devices? Rossi has a head start on the competition, and there's no reason why he cannot maintain his lead even after they torn it apart and reverse-engineered it. Andrew -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Some reasons Rossi has personal credibility
Jed, This is a marvellous post. Thanks. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:19 AM Subject: [Vo]:Some reasons Rossi has personal credibility We all know that Rossi has some personal credibility problems. He has been involved in some dodgy business. As I have pointed out before you can say that about many important people such as Edison and Steve Jobs who got his start selling devices to steal from the telephone company. People are complicated and you should not have a one-dimensional view of their worth. Lost in the middle of another large thread, Jones Beene listed some reasons why Rossi does have some personal credibility. Let me copy his entire message and then add some other reasons. QUOTE . . . AR sold his biofuel company EON for about one million Euro and could have retired comfortably to Miami on that income. This is a matter of public record. Instead - he reinvests the proceeds of the EON sale into his project ! Does that sound like a scammer? It is preposterous that anyone would claim that he does this sale of a profitable company – and then reinvestment the proceeds to perpetuate as scam, with which to obtain enough capital for “adequate living” when he already had that to begin with. Instead he has to go through the constant reminders of his past legal difficulties, in order to find a solution to one of societies greatest problems? Get a life! These people like Krivit, etc -- who blindly suggest scam because they personally were not honored with a demo -- ought to at least do their homework first and read what is available in the public record before spouting crap about scam, since there is no plausible motive which would be worth the risk. END QUOTE Right! Here are some other reasons -- People who have worked with Rossi tell me that he works 10 to 14 hours a day. As Beene says, he could have retired comfortably but instead he spends hours a day doing difficult, painstaking and sometimes dangerous experiments in a crowded workshop. People who know him tell me he is a genius at the workbench. He has the kind of intellect that expresses itself in prototype machinery, not abstract ideas. This in no way denigrates his abilities. Some people express ideas in words and formulas, others by making equipment. I think Edison mainly worked by building actual prototypes. You might also compare Rossi to a great artist such as Rodin. Independent observers tell me that he really did make dozens of prototype devices for his 1 MW reactor, which he then modified and modified again. I think he scrapped a large number of them at one point, and started over from scratch. This must have cost a fortune. This is not the profile of a scammer. If the equipment was fake, he could produce it quickly with minimal effort. He would not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars making prototype equipment which he then trashes. He would make one or two fake, stage-prop prototypes, and he would use them again and again. He would not spend thousands of dollars renting a large workshop, renting a gasoline powered 200 kW generator, or buying a shipping container. You can make a fake energy device much smaller than this, at a tiny fraction of this cost. Putting hundreds of devices inside a shipping container does not enhance your credibility with scientists and investors. On the contrary, most people find that odd. A scammer would not invite important people from NASA to his lab and then do a demonstration that clearly fails to work. If he has the ability to put on a demonstration that fools people and fools instruments, why wouldn't he use that ability every time, for every audience? The people from NASA are experts, but no more capable than others who saw the equipment when it was working properly. There is no question that in other demonstrations the performance was quite different from the failed demonstration that day. I cannot prove by logic and common sense that Rossi is not a faker. This sort of thing cannot be demonstrated with rigorous proof, the way an experiment or an equation can be. But everything I know about history, society, confidence men, and my experience with people like Rossi tell me that he is not faking. He does have a powerful reality distortion field. Some gifted people do, especially inventors and entrepreneurs such as Edison and Steve Jobs. I define this as someone who sees things in his imagination more clearly than he sees things in reality, and who has a strange charisma that sometimes causes other people share his visions. Such people are dangerous. They often cause disasters. But they also build things that most people think are impossible, such as the Brooklyn Bridge and the airplane. Fleischmann and Pons were nothing like this, by the way. They were painfully conventional people, as Martin often said
Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Although my point about Why off limits? stands, I thank you for the correction. As a general comment, it is quite possible to be a good physicist and a fairly lousy electrical engineer. Comments posted here about 3-phase plus ground power have not yet been addressed. Andrew - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem From: Andrew andrew...@att.net Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:11:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem p15 states: the TRIAC power supply has been replaced by a control circuit having three-phase power input and single-phase output, mounted within a box, the contents of which were not available for inspection, inasmuch as they are part of the industrial trade secret. I find it hard to believe that simply viewing the contents of a box would be off limits. Perhaps it contained 100 Kg of batteries, which is roughly sufficient to produce 500 W for 116 hours. Look at the two huge blue boxes in Fig. 16. Why would they be off-limits? You can guess the nature of a proprietary waveform by looking into a box? This really stinks. You mean fig 6 ? Also shown in Fig 4. The big blue box at the back are the closed doors of the shipping container. On the left of the picture you can see a small blue-and-yellow control box, and three larger black-and yellow boxes with grills. Those are about the right size for multi-kW Triacs. (Do you admit that there ARE triacs, or do you think they've been replaced with 100-hour 4 kW batteries?) The blue and yellow control box is maybe 8 x 10 x 4 inches (wild guess). Incidentally, ALL the equipment seems to go into one power socket. All those laptops and stuff are going to LOVE that huge DC and RF fake power.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
One more question to be settled: Were those very proximate shipping containers inspected and found to be empty? Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Although my point about Why off limits? stands, I thank you for the correction. As a general comment, it is quite possible to be a good physicist and a fairly lousy electrical engineer. Comments posted here about 3-phase plus ground power have not yet been addressed. Andrew - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem From: Andrew andrew...@att.net Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:11:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem p15 states: the TRIAC power supply has been replaced by a control circuit having three-phase power input and single-phase output, mounted within a box, the contents of which were not available for inspection, inasmuch as they are part of the industrial trade secret. I find it hard to believe that simply viewing the contents of a box would be off limits. Perhaps it contained 100 Kg of batteries, which is roughly sufficient to produce 500 W for 116 hours. Look at the two huge blue boxes in Fig. 16. Why would they be off-limits? You can guess the nature of a proprietary waveform by looking into a box? This really stinks. You mean fig 6 ? Also shown in Fig 4. The big blue box at the back are the closed doors of the shipping container. On the left of the picture you can see a small blue-and-yellow control box, and three larger black-and yellow boxes with grills. Those are about the right size for multi-kW Triacs. (Do you admit that there ARE triacs, or do you think they've been replaced with 100-hour 4 kW batteries?) The blue and yellow control box is maybe 8 x 10 x 4 inches (wild guess). Incidentally, ALL the equipment seems to go into one power socket. All those laptops and stuff are going to LOVE that huge DC and RF fake power.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
I was thinking more along the lines of near-field heating using an RF source and lots of batteries. Andrew - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem From: Andrew andrew...@att.net Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:47:42 PM One more question to be settled: Were those very proximate shipping containers inspected and found to be empty? It (singular) contains the 1MW warm-cat, before it was shipped. One of the pictures shows the doors open. Even if it wasn't (gee... maybe it contains an energy teleporter to heat the hot cat???) there are multiple shots showing bare floor between the hotcat test stand and the rest of the area. The only cables go to the wooden test bench. ps : so Rossi could have hidden wires under the concrete, feeding into the metal stand and to hence to the secret connectors on the hotcats. (Never mind that the ceramic outer layer maybe doesn't conduct too well). Oh, and that to provide THERMAL insulation there is a fiberglass pad between the hotcat and the frame. You can see it in at least one of the pictures. ps : No need to copy the ENTIRE post when replying.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
I just wondered if they were verified to be empty. I ask because the report makes no mention of this (among other things). Obviously the Faraday cage argument is sound, so some tricky mods would be necessary. I realise this sounds far-fetched, but I am addressing all the loopholes I can think of. It's just the way I think. Andrew - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:05 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew, At least give us some idea of how they would be used, or what could be inside, that Rossi could use to carry out the fraud? They are steel, and thus form a Faraday cage as does the steel cylinder which houses the reactor core, so no way RF or IR laser could be used to remotely heat up the reactor. What other means of getting energy to the reactor is there using these shipping containers? Ultrasound? -Mark Iverson -Original Message- From: Andrew [mailto:andrew...@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:48 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem One more question to be settled: Were those very proximate shipping containers inspected and found to be empty? Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Although my point about Why off limits? stands, I thank you for the correction. As a general comment, it is quite possible to be a good physicist and a fairly lousy electrical engineer. Comments posted here about 3-phase plus ground power have not yet been addressed. Andrew - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem From: Andrew andrew...@att.net Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:11:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem p15 states: the TRIAC power supply has been replaced by a control circuit having three-phase power input and single-phase output, mounted within a box, the contents of which were not available for inspection, inasmuch as they are part of the industrial trade secret. I find it hard to believe that simply viewing the contents of a box would be off limits. Perhaps it contained 100 Kg of batteries, which is roughly sufficient to produce 500 W for 116 hours. Look at the two huge blue boxes in Fig. 16. Why would they be off-limits? You can guess the nature of a proprietary waveform by looking into a box? This really stinks. You mean fig 6 ? Also shown in Fig 4. The big blue box at the back are the closed doors of the shipping container. On the left of the picture you can see a small blue-and-yellow control box, and three larger black-and yellow boxes with grills. Those are about the right size for multi-kW Triacs. (Do you admit that there ARE triacs, or do you think they've been replaced with 100-hour 4 kW batteries?) The blue and yellow control box is maybe 8 x 10 x 4 inches (wild guess). Incidentally, ALL the equipment seems to go into one power socket. All those laptops and stuff are going to LOVE that huge DC and RF fake power.
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed
I doubt that Rossi would allow a power conditioner, because he himself states that there is some initial RF powering going on to kickstart the device. Since the experimenters walked up to the experiment after it had been turned on, we don't know for sure whether the existing cabling was used to impart the RF, or a separate kickstart cable. Were I to guess, I would assume that the existing cabling was used, and that the RF generator resides in the control box. There's a whole lot of detail about the input side that would benefit from the light of day. What's required is an interview with the Swedes from someone who understands the issues. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I've come to the conclusion that the only way to overcome the power-side fake is to put a power conditioner between Rossi's power plug (maybe miswired per Bryce etc, or with a DC component) and his control box. That would do it. But the fact is, any $20 watt meter would also do it. Experts tell me there is no way you can fool one. They are better than meters costing thousands of dollars were 20 years ago. Levi has one of those things. I expect he used it. He did in previous tests. I suggest you should stop fantasizing about this. Rossi did not take apart the wall and install secret equipment that he turned on and then turned off during the calibration. He did not find a way to send so much power through an ordinary electric cord that he melted steel and ceramic. That is not possible. You can dismiss it from your mind. The electric cord would have burned. The other gadgets such as the computers plugged into that circuit would have been roached. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed
Talar ni Svenska. Not much, anyway. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: There's a whole lot of detail about the input side that would benefit from the light of day. What's required is an interview with the Swedes from someone who understands the issues. And who understands Swedish. Any volunteers? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem:cooling coils
Duncan - Take a look at that power meter. There's a bunch of stuff that could get by it. As we've seen with a certain Fullerton prof., being a decent physicist doesn't mean you grok electrical engineering. Another advantage of those cooling coils you're suggesting is that some elementary calorimetry can be done. One can never have enough measurements. Andrew - Original Message - From: Duncan Cumming To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:58 PM Subject: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem:cooling coils Hi, guys! This is my first post, Andrew invited me in to the list. I read the Levi et al paper, and I noticed that they measured an input power of around 400 watts and an output power of around 2000 watts. But (for control simplicity reasons) they had no insulation on their tube furnace, and had to keep input power connected so as to keep the reaction going. Why not use an ordinary, properly insulated electric tube furnace fitted with cooling coils on the inside? That way, the input power could be disconnected entirely once the reactor starts to run, and the temperature controlled by the coolant flow. A run of 96 hours producing 2000 watts with no input power would be a lot more convincing to many people. The reason is that, even if the power measurement is inaccurate, the fact that the machine is self sustaining means that some power must be being produced. Probably compressed air in stainless steel coils would be a suitable coolant for this application. I think that a self sustaining reactor running for a few days at a few kW would go a long way towards improving the credibility of this particular device. There is no need to generate electricity, just thermal output without electrical input, only using electrical energy to start the reactor. Duncan Cumming Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed Resent-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:33:57 -0700 From: Andrew andrew...@att.net Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I doubt that Rossi would allow a power conditioner, because he himself states that there is some snip Andrew
[Vo]:What it takes to fake
Some points to ponder, if you run the numbers: 1. To produce the supposed excess energy generated over 116 hours would require about 100 Kg of lithium-based batteries. 2. To produce the supposed excess power would require a wire feed (and return) carrying just a few milliAmps at a few Kilovolts. 3. The clamp ammeters are incapable of detecting not only DC but also incapable of detecting frequencies above about 60 Hz. Andrew
Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]
Rossi has stated that the testers brought their own cables. A poster here asserts that they were Rossi's cables. As usual, this issue is not addressed by the paper. If I were concerned with my scientific integrity, I would collect together all such comments and re-issue that paper. But if I were a veterinarian, like one of the authors, it wouldn't be a big concern, because I could still make dogs' health better. Andrew
Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]
Serves me right for copying verbatim from an article without checking. Apologies. Obviously it was a half-baked hatchet job in that article. I can't locate it for now, but I definitely read it, and yes it was Foschi. Andrew - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?] Which author is the veterinarian? Here are the details I've been able to find: * Evelyn Foschi -- not sure; possibly this: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/evelyn-foschi/5/7b8/645 Associated with http://www.ceixray.com/ They MAKE X-RAY EQUIPMENT, which can be used for (their site typing out a caption) Orthodonty Veterinarians === Industrial Control Quality Control Alimentary (Digestion, I presume)
Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]
It does mean vet. Here's a random person from LinkedIn Cornelia Wagner, Dr. med. vet. Veterinarian, Certified Veterinary Acupucturist at Hawthorne Veterinary Clinic She's German also, like Hartman. So yes, Hartman's a vet. Perhaps because he's vetting. Woof woof. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?] Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Which author is a vet? I didn't find any such thing ... Maybe this guy? Hartman: http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo?id=N96-5170 Personal merits Dr.Med.vet., civ.ing. I guess that means Veterinarian Medicine and Civil Engineering. But maybe it means something different in Swedish. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]
I for one am going to drop this esteemed science team meme. There's another one with a nuclear physics qualification who has several patents on coffee machine design. This does not indicate to me that we are dealing here with the cream of the crop. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?] It does mean vet. Here's a random person from LinkedIn Cornelia Wagner, Dr. med. vet. Veterinarian, Certified Veterinary Acupucturist at Hawthorne Veterinary Clinic She's German also, like Hartman. So yes, Hartman's a vet. Perhaps because he's vetting. Woof woof. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?] Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Which author is a vet? I didn't find any such thing ... Maybe this guy? Hartman: http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo?id=N96-5170 Personal merits Dr.Med.vet., civ.ing. I guess that means Veterinarian Medicine and Civil Engineering. But maybe it means something different in Swedish. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]
Oh Lord, we are all sinners :) - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?] MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: E.g., the statement that how could you melt the ceramic with a much higher melting point and not the steel cylinder, or that both the ceramic and the steel melted... Both of these are wrong. That was NEVER stated in the report. Yes, it was. Figs. 1-2 caption: The performance of this device was such that the reactor was destroyed, melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers. . . . they are almost a sure indication that the person has NOT read the original report; they are just parroting what they've read elsewhere. I said that first here, and I read the report carefully, several times. Also, it helps to do a Ctrl-s search for ceramic (which I just did, to find it again). I will grant, I often mis-remember things. That's why God gave up Google. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Some reasons Rossi has personal credibility
These testers are not predominantly engineers. And especially they are not predominantly electrical or electronics engineers, and this seems to me to be a most desirable skill to have in this situation. That's unless you trust Rossi implicitly (and if you do, you're welcome). Andrew - Original Message - From: Robert Lynn To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:03 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Some reasons Rossi has personal credibility Strange, in my observation 3 things define the best engineers I know (of few hundred I have met): 1 Excellent/encyclopedic memory - at least for engineering stuff, may not be able to remember their friends names or where they put their keys. 2 Good at mental calculation (assess what-ifs quickly). 3 Powerful work ethic. Raw smarts help too. On 23 May 2013 23:05, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: . . . it doesn't surprise me that someone with a poor memory can also be an excellent engineer. The two traits go together. With me, for instance, it's because I have a hard time remembering, that I have become an excellent problem solver. When I look at code that I've written, just a few months earlier; it's like looking at new code which I've never seen before. I then have to reconstruct the solutions to the problems -- again -- from scratch. That is an interesting observation. I have the same kind of mind. I too see programs afresh the next day. That is helpful for jobs that require you to do the same thing over and over, year after year, such as teaching 5th grade. I imagine you would be bored to tears doing that if you could not find the same old historylesson interesting the 10th time around. I suppose Yul Brynner must have had this quality since he was able to perform The King And I on stage 4,625 (!) times. I guess that is a good thing. I think that the ability to forget is essential to many formsof creativity. There are people who do not forget things. They have prodigious memories and they can remember details from years or decades ago. If this ability gave us an evolutionary advantage everyone would have it. Since most of us tend to forget things I assume that promotes survival in natural circumstances. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the power input?
Many of us are saying that. I think it's the primary criticism. - Original Message - From: Robert Lynn To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 1:00 AM Subject: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the power input? This has only just occurred to me, but in my mind is a bit of a red flag: The reactor vessel is a sealed metal container, no electrical or magnetic signal of any frequency will penetrate it (It is a faraday cage). And all of the resistive heating elements are positioned around it, so they do nothing but deliver heat to the reactor contents - no special magnetic or electrical excitation can pass through the reactor vessel. All of these configurational details were revealed to the testers by Rossi. So why did Rossi feel the need to prevent detailed analysis of the input power to these resistors that are no more than resistive heaters? We know he ran it in at least a partially pulsed 35% on 65% off mode with period of about 6 minutes from the thermography. So what possible harm could have come from allowing continuous measurement of voltage drop and current flow through the resistors? As such preventing that measurement serves no sensible purpose that I, or any other engineer/scientist could see, it is a pointless obfuscation. All it achieves is raising suspicion about just what electrical power is really flowing through those resistors.
Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test
What's relevant here is not - the nuclear details - whether the output power is adequate (it is, by an apparent factor of 10 at minimum) but rather - whether the input power was measured correctly. Just my $0.02, Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:21 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Nice sanity check. The next thing to check would be to put your alpha source in heavy water. :) Sorry, context switch, there. I was thinking of Pd/D. But that set of questions is also interesting and possibly relevant here. Eric
Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test
For misunderstanding the context, my apologies. The Rossi stuff has the potential for generating frustration too. Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 2:40 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test Hi, We were picking up an ongoing thread concerning whether fast particles are being generated in any quantity in an Ni/H cold fusion reaction. (We've been debating it for several months now, I think.) We were proceeding on the assumption that Ni/H is real. Then I inadvertently mixed in Pd/D. We hijacked the thread about the testing of Rossi's E-Cat to talk about Ni/H in general (and an explanation for Ni/H). We did not intend to imply much if anything about the E-Cat test. My apologies for any confusion. That kind of thing happens here a lot and can make it hard to follow the threads. We try to spin off new threads when it happens, but I never do. Eric On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: What's relevant here is not - the nuclear details - whether the output power is adequate (it is, by an apparent factor of 10 at minimum) but rather - whether the input power was measured correctly. Just my $0.02, Andrew
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues
Dave, Does this model allow a stable energy production regime to exist when, after initiation via initial heating has begun, the device can be run at zero input power, and regulation to prevent runaway is achieved by the application of sporadic cooling via (say) cooling tubes? For if the device can indeed be continuously operated at zero (or indeed negative) input power, then one has unambiguously demonstrated the production of something from nothing, and there's no getting away from that. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues Fran, my model takes into account the rate of heat transfer out of the device by using a parameter that simulates a thermal positive feedback loop. And, as you suggest this depends greatly upon the rate of heat generation with temperature and the thermal resistance that it delivers that heat into. Another way to think of this effect is to consider what would happen to a block of active material which is surrounded by a perfect heat conductor. In this special case, any additional heat that is generated is immediately absorbed by the conductor and can not raise the temperature of the block. This would be a stable condition and the COP would be low. Now, if you modify the surrounding heat conductor by increasing its thermal resistance then any newly generated heat from within the block would result in an increase in its internal temperature in a positive feedback manner. The resistance can be increased until it reaches a point such that a tiny incremental input of heat to the block results in a temperature increase of the block that causes additional heat generation slightly larger than the initial increment. Rossi appears to operate above this resistance point when his device has the desired performance. That was a lot of words and I suspect is not clearly written. The meat of the description is that there will be a temperature that depends upon the heat sinking where the device becomes unstable and begins to proceed toward melting. My model suggests that this is the temperature above which Rossi should operate his device to achieve good COP. The model further indicates that you can maintain control of the device while operating above this point as long as you reverse the process before a second temperature trip point is reached that leads to run away. It is important to realize that operation within this region is unstable unless a drive waveform is applied with the proper characteristics. In the radio world this type of device would be referred to as a negative resistance component. Rossi must be relying upon the energy generated in this mode for his large gain. The hard part is to keep the ECAT from getting out of control since he is operating on a sharp balance to obtain good COP. I am not modeling any process that occurs beyond the two temperature trips that I described since operation above the second one is destructive. Operation below the first temperature point results in a COP that is too low to be useful. I have included energy loss due to a 4th order radiation process in some of my runs, but so far I find that control issues occur before this has significant effect. I believe as you do that operation with a heat exchange fluid will be easier to control. This also allows Rossi to adjust the flow rate which could be used to modify the thermal resistance factor and thus total loop dynamics. For example, he could raise the temperature at which the core become unstable thereby compensating for different core activities. My model operates upon the average behavior of an ECAT type device. It assumes that the design has been developed by good engineering processes. If the design team allows the system to harbor inconsistent heat transfer such as would occur with too many and too large in size hot spots, then there is no control technique that will work effectively. I suspect that much effort will center around making sure this issue is handled. Dave -Original Message- From: francis froarty...@comcast.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, May 25, 2013 7:16 am Subject: re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues Dave, I think you we are both in agreement with the initial post of Ed’s thermal analysis, http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg80803.html but it does not mention the difference between the destructive test in open air and the unit in normal operation which is constantly bathed in a heat extracting fluid.. are you modeling this in your SPICE calculation? The thermal circuit in the destructive test only has air cooling to keep the runaway at bay and represents a softer – more fragile target for the waveforms to temporarily exceed while I think the reactor in heavy heat sinking mode would have much
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues
Dave, It seems that your model of heat conductivity leads to a system equation that's a linear first order differential equation, if I'm not mistaken. That's a tractable system to deal with from a simulation and control point of view, and as such lends itself to numerical optimisation techniques. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues Fran, my model takes into account the rate of heat transfer out of the device by using a parameter that simulates a thermal positive feedback loop. And, as you suggest this depends greatly upon the rate of heat generation with temperature and the thermal resistance that it delivers that heat into. Another way to think of this effect is to consider what would happen to a block of active material which is surrounded by a perfect heat conductor. In this special case, any additional heat that is generated is immediately absorbed by the conductor and can not raise the temperature of the block. This would be a stable condition and the COP would be low. Now, if you modify the surrounding heat conductor by increasing its thermal resistance then any newly generated heat from within the block would result in an increase in its internal temperature in a positive feedback manner. The resistance can be increased until it reaches a point such that a tiny incremental input of heat to the block results in a temperature increase of the block that causes additional heat generation slightly larger than the initial increment. Rossi appears to operate above this resistance point when his device has the desired performance. That was a lot of words and I suspect is not clearly written. The meat of the description is that there will be a temperature that depends upon the heat sinking where the device becomes unstable and begins to proceed toward melting. My model suggests that this is the temperature above which Rossi should operate his device to achieve good COP. The model further indicates that you can maintain control of the device while operating above this point as long as you reverse the process before a second temperature trip point is reached that leads to run away. It is important to realize that operation within this region is unstable unless a drive waveform is applied with the proper characteristics. In the radio world this type of device would be referred to as a negative resistance component. Rossi must be relying upon the energy generated in this mode for his large gain. The hard part is to keep the ECAT from getting out of control since he is operating on a sharp balance to obtain good COP. I am not modeling any process that occurs beyond the two temperature trips that I described since operation above the second one is destructive. Operation below the first temperature point results in a COP that is too low to be useful. I have included energy loss due to a 4th order radiation process in some of my runs, but so far I find that control issues occur before this has significant effect. I believe as you do that operation with a heat exchange fluid will be easier to control. This also allows Rossi to adjust the flow rate which could be used to modify the thermal resistance factor and thus total loop dynamics. For example, he could raise the temperature at which the core become unstable thereby compensating for different core activities. My model operates upon the average behavior of an ECAT type device. It assumes that the design has been developed by good engineering processes. If the design team allows the system to harbor inconsistent heat transfer such as would occur with too many and too large in size hot spots, then there is no control technique that will work effectively. I suspect that much effort will center around making sure this issue is handled. Dave -Original Message- From: francis froarty...@comcast.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, May 25, 2013 7:16 am Subject: re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues Dave, I think you we are both in agreement with the initial post of Ed’s thermal analysis, http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg80803.html but it does not mention the difference between the destructive test in open air and the unit in normal operation which is constantly bathed in a heat extracting fluid.. are you modeling this in your SPICE calculation? The thermal circuit in the destructive test only has air cooling to keep the runaway at bay and represents a softer – more fragile target for the waveforms to temporarily exceed while I think the reactor in heavy heat sinking mode would have much higher tolerance for controlled PWM excursions into areas that would be considered runaway if not for the steady drain. Fran [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues David Roberson Fri, 24 May 2013 23
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues
Dave, You therefore answer in the affirmative - i.e. it looks possible in principle to operate with sporadic negative power input (cooling) and at zero input power, once the reaction set point has been established. This is exactly what is required to nail down the existence of the effect. No shenanigans with input power are then possible, and there's only one conclusion possible - that, at steady-state, energy is being generated when no energy is being input. This is crucial in my view for universal acceptance of the vailidity of the effect - whatever the details of that effect might be. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues Andrew, My model demonstrates that a periodic waveform is required in order to keep the ECAT within stable bounds and at a good COP. If the drive is totally eliminated then there are two states that can exist. One is for the device to cool off and reach room temperature and the other is for it to continue rising in temperature until it can no longer be controlled by the drive waveform. You can use the final drive state to determine which direction the ECAT ultimately heads. That is, you can give the ECAT a push toward one of those two conditions. The positive feedback mechanism takes over after that final push and carries the order to completion. Of course, if someone applies super cooling tubes to extract the excess heat then the thermal resistance will be reduced. Enough of this type of cooling could reverse the process. If sufficient reduction in thermal resistance is achieved, the positive feedback instability can be defeated. If the loop gain becomes less than unity the device would begin to cool toward room temperature. It is a complicated system with many subtle points to consider. There may exist some situations where negative feedback occurs, but this is speculative. I am fairly confident that a limiting mechanism must exist where the temperature can become no higher. As this temperature is approached the positive feedback loop gain must become less than unity. When the gain is reduced below unity stable operation begins and a real SSM occurs. I suspect that any attempt to gain control by drive alone is hopeless at these temperatures and the only way possible to cool the device would be to flush it with coolant. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, May 25, 2013 12:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues Dave, Does this model allow a stable energy production regime to exist when, after initiation via initial heating has begun, the device can be run at zero input power, and regulation to prevent runaway is achieved by the application of sporadic cooling via (say) cooling tubes? For if the device can indeed be continuously operated at zero (or indeed negative) input power, then one has unambiguously demonstrated the production of something from nothing, and there's no getting away from that. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues Fran, my model takes into account the rate of heat transfer out of the device by using a parameter that simulates a thermal positive feedback loop. And, as you suggest this depends greatly upon the rate of heat generation with temperature and the thermal resistance that it delivers that heat into. Another way to think of this effect is to consider what would happen to a block of active material which is surrounded by a perfect heat conductor. In this special case, any additional heat that is generated is immediately absorbed by the conductor and can not raise the temperature of the block. This would be a stable condition and the COP would be low. Now, if you modify the surrounding heat conductor by increasing its thermal resistance then any newly generated heat from within the block would result in an increase in its internal temperature in a positive feedback manner. The resistance can be increased until it reaches a point such that a tiny incremental input of heat to the block results in a temperature increase of the block that causes additional heat generation slightly larger than the initial increment. Rossi appears to operate above this resistance point when his device has the desired performance. That was a lot of words and I suspect is not clearly written. The meat of the description is that there will be a temperature that depends upon the heat sinking where the device becomes unstable and begins to proceed toward melting. My model suggests that this is the temperature above which Rossi should operate his device to achieve good COP. The model further
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues
I should add that I don't believe that currently we have any hard evidence for the existence of thermal runaway occurring spontaneously. The (in)famous photo of the device in meltdown was taken under the condition of continuous supply of substantial input power. For all we know, we are looking at a photo of a resistor overheating. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues Dave, You therefore answer in the affirmative - i.e. it looks possible in principle to operate with sporadic negative power input (cooling) and at zero input power, once the reaction set point has been established. This is exactly what is required to nail down the existence of the effect. No shenanigans with input power are then possible, and there's only one conclusion possible - that, at steady-state, energy is being generated when no energy is being input. This is crucial in my view for universal acceptance of the vailidity of the effect - whatever the details of that effect might be. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues Andrew, My model demonstrates that a periodic waveform is required in order to keep the ECAT within stable bounds and at a good COP. If the drive is totally eliminated then there are two states that can exist. One is for the device to cool off and reach room temperature and the other is for it to continue rising in temperature until it can no longer be controlled by the drive waveform. You can use the final drive state to determine which direction the ECAT ultimately heads. That is, you can give the ECAT a push toward one of those two conditions. The positive feedback mechanism takes over after that final push and carries the order to completion. Of course, if someone applies super cooling tubes to extract the excess heat then the thermal resistance will be reduced. Enough of this type of cooling could reverse the process. If sufficient reduction in thermal resistance is achieved, the positive feedback instability can be defeated. If the loop gain becomes less than unity the device would begin to cool toward room temperature. It is a complicated system with many subtle points to consider. There may exist some situations where negative feedback occurs, but this is speculative. I am fairly confident that a limiting mechanism must exist where the temperature can become no higher. As this temperature is approached the positive feedback loop gain must become less than unity. When the gain is reduced below unity stable operation begins and a real SSM occurs. I suspect that any attempt to gain control by drive alone is hopeless at these temperatures and the only way possible to cool the device would be to flush it with coolant. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, May 25, 2013 12:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues Dave, Does this model allow a stable energy production regime to exist when, after initiation via initial heating has begun, the device can be run at zero input power, and regulation to prevent runaway is achieved by the application of sporadic cooling via (say) cooling tubes? For if the device can indeed be continuously operated at zero (or indeed negative) input power, then one has unambiguously demonstrated the production of something from nothing, and there's no getting away from that. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues Fran, my model takes into account the rate of heat transfer out of the device by using a parameter that simulates a thermal positive feedback loop. And, as you suggest this depends greatly upon the rate of heat generation with temperature and the thermal resistance that it delivers that heat into. Another way to think of this effect is to consider what would happen to a block of active material which is surrounded by a perfect heat conductor. In this special case, any additional heat that is generated is immediately absorbed by the conductor and can not raise the temperature of the block. This would be a stable condition and the COP would be low. Now, if you modify the surrounding heat conductor by increasing its thermal resistance then any newly generated heat from within the block would result in an increase in its internal temperature in a positive feedback manner. The resistance can be increased until it reaches a point such that a tiny incremental input of heat to the block results in a temperature increase of the block
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues
Mark - That's fine; my memory of the sci.physics.fusion conversation and of lab photo showing the PF meltdown is fairly intact. It's a shame, though, that one has to reach back to 1989, almost a quarter century ago, to pull out such an example. What's required IMHO is the demonstration of steady state heat generation (preferably controlled) when there's zero input power. If there's input power, sceptics will point to an input fraud. Andrew - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 11:09 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues Andrew: I believe there is ample evidence of thermal runaway from competent scientists, NOT Rossi. Jed and Ed can give you specifics, but one example might be what happened in FPs lab at Univ of Utah… this was AFTER power was reduced or shut off for the night, and the event caused a boil-off, the glass container/beaker breaking and a large (12”?) diameter hole being melted thru the laboratory tabletop, and even a crater in the concrete floor… Jed, care to point Andrew at a few specific examples, other than Rossi! -Mark From: Andrew [mailto:andrew...@att.net] Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:51 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues I should add that I don't believe that currently we have any hard evidence for the existence of thermal runaway occurring spontaneously. The (in)famous photo of the device in meltdown was taken under the condition of continuous supply of substantial input power. For all we know, we are looking at a photo of a resistor overheating. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues Dave, You therefore answer in the affirmative - i.e. it looks possible in principle to operate with sporadic negative power input (cooling) and at zero input power, once the reaction set point has been established. This is exactly what is required to nail down the existence of the effect. No shenanigans with input power are then possible, and there's only one conclusion possible - that, at steady-state, energy is being generated when no energy is being input. This is crucial in my view for universal acceptance of the vailidity of the effect - whatever the details of that effect might be. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues Andrew, My model demonstrates that a periodic waveform is required in order to keep the ECAT within stable bounds and at a good COP. If the drive is totally eliminated then there are two states that can exist. One is for the device to cool off and reach room temperature and the other is for it to continue rising in temperature until it can no longer be controlled by the drive waveform. You can use the final drive state to determine which direction the ECAT ultimately heads. That is, you can give the ECAT a push toward one of those two conditions. The positive feedback mechanism takes over after that final push and carries the order to completion. Of course, if someone applies super cooling tubes to extract the excess heat then the thermal resistance will be reduced. Enough of this type of cooling could reverse the process. If sufficient reduction in thermal resistance is achieved, the positive feedback instability can be defeated. If the loop gain becomes less than unity the device would begin to cool toward room temperature. It is a complicated system with many subtle points to consider. There may exist some situations where negative feedback occurs, but this is speculative. I am fairly confident that a limiting mechanism must exist where the temperature can become no higher. As this temperature is approached the positive feedback loop gain must become less than unity. When the gain is reduced below unity stable operation begins and a real SSM occurs. I suspect that any attempt to gain control by drive alone is hopeless at these temperatures and the only way possible to cool the device would be to flush it with coolant. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, May 25, 2013 12:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues Dave, Does this model allow a stable energy production regime to exist when, after initiation via initial heating has begun, the device can be run at zero input power, and regulation to prevent runaway is achieved by the application of sporadic cooling via (say) cooling tubes
[Vo]:COP and non-chemical processes
The COP for any exothermic chemical reaction is infinite, so there's nothing particularly special about high COP values. What interests me more is how the justification proceeds for statements like the output energy density exceeds that of any chemical process. What kind of threshold of energy density does this represent, such that one can label a process non-chemical? Andrew
Re: [Vo]:web feed
I'd like to see the next LENR test devised so that the possibility of fraud is dramatically reduced. Andrew - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:30 PM Subject: [Vo]:web feed I would like to see the next LENR test televised 24/7 on the internet using a web cam in the same way that NASA sometimes shows their missions. The web feed can be picked up by interested web sites. This will allow real time reaction to the experiment from those who watch.
[Vo]: General remarks about LENR
Hi Ed, I appreciate your nuclear insights; I ought to own up to the fact that, although I have a first degree in physics (Oxford), I have never practised nuclear physics professionally. So, I'm a bit confused by this talk of gamma emission and electron capture, so I went off to confirm my doubts. FWIW, Wikipedia agrees with my doubts - namely, it's a neutrino, not a photon, that's emitted in K-capture. Perhaps I misunderstand what you and others are saying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture Also, a general comment about LENR. If we are trying to overcome the Coulomb barrier, then let's look at mundane systems where we are doing our damndest to bang them into each other. One example that springs to mind is a piezoelectric material like barium titanate (BaTiO3). It's typically an FCC crystal structure and, when excited electrically to vibrate, exhibits a very high Q-factor at resonance. At high drive powers, the ions really do jiggle a significant delta-distance, expressed as a fraction of the inter-ion distance scale. And yet nothing like nuclear fusion has ever been observed in piezoelectric materials. It would therefore appear that investigating mechanical resonance in regular crystal structures is not the mechanism for LENR, if such is real. In the case of the Rossi experiment, we know that we're not allowed to know the stoichiometry of the initial powder, but the testers were allowed to break open the reaction vessel after the run - there's a photo of the cut tube and its powder content in the report. Is it the case that Rossi disallowed analysis of this final powder material? It would appear so, given that no such analysis appears in the report. Andrew (this is a resend of a post which did not take) - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On May 22, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, I think the structure of the coulomb barrier is open to intrinsic modification, but the variables governing this possibility cannot be uncovered by the tools and concepts of high energy physics. I agree. In fact, the insistence that high energy physics be used is the flaw in the skeptical arguments. In most situations the coulomb barrier behaves in a textbook fashion, but when bathed in the right vibrations the barrier can be tuned to soften. I think a different description is more useful. The two nuclei have first to get critically close together by intervention of an electron. This process is conventional. Once this happens and the bond can resonate, the periodic reduction in distance causes the nuclei to emit a photon (gamma). Each emitted photon allows hte distance to be reduced because the energy of the system has now been reduced, which reduces the Coulomb barrier. After enough photons have been emitted, the two nuclei collapse into one, which is the nuclear product. Of course, the intervening electron that is required to reduce the barrier is sucked into the final nucleus. The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron
Re: [Vo]:web feed
Jed, Yes - that's why webcams would be nice but not particularly useful for uncovering deliberate fraud. That is precisely why I (and Duncan Cumming) are calling for a test whereby there is no power input for a decent amount of time. If there is no power input, there's nothing than can be fudged past the limitations of the measurement equipment. How do you know that the power meter was not selected by Levi and given to the group? What kind of researcher would not put a scope on the cable? or would break open the cable to check for trickery? The testers did neither of these things, and that's perhaps because not one of them was a competent EE, and/or trusted Rossi to not try and fool them. They left that barn door wide open. It says little for their common sense, quite frankly. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:web feed Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: I'd like to see the next LENR test devised so that the possibility of fraud is dramatically reduced. It would be fun to put the test on web video but I do not see how this would reduce the possibility of fraud. If the people doing the test all want to commit fraud they can easily set up a test that looks completely convincing. If you do not trust Levi et al. to make an honest report and to publish real data, a video will not be more convincing to you than their report is. If you think their method is incompetent, seeing it performed in real time on video will not sway you. Many skeptics already say that Levi and the others who wrote the latest report are in cahoots with Rossi. They are all engaged in fraud together. Other skeptics claim there are special circuits in the wall which can deliver enough power to melt steel and ceramic, magically without melting the wire from the wall to the power supply. If that were true, a video would not reveal it. The secret circuit is hidden from view. A skeptic can make up any number of other scenarios. It makes no difference how far fetched these scenarios become. As I pointed out before, the skeptics assume Rossi has magical ESP so that he knows what kind of power meter they will bring, so he can set up everything just right to fool that particular meter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:web feed
Fair enough; there are ways to avoid the possibility of input fraud without demanding zero input power. For instance, to stipulate that the input drive circuitry be provided by an independent team and shared publicly. This need be nothing more complicated than a battery or DC power supply with a make-break relay powered by a 555 timer to emulate the pulsed drive condition. That means a two-wire feed capable of carrying a few hundred watts. That is so utterly simple that it cannot be faked. Instead, we see secrecy about the control box and a Byzantine power feed mechanism consisting of 3 wires, and a power factor of 0.48. If you don't think that's fishy, then I don't know what to tell you. To me, it stinks. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:35 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:web feed Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: That is precisely why I (and Duncan Cumming) are calling for a test whereby there is no power input for a decent amount of time. My understanding is that the Hot Cat will blow up if you do that. It is not stable running in heat after death mode. How do you know that the power meter was not selected by Levi and given to the group? It might have been selected by Levi, but I assume he is honest, and not conspiring with Rossi. Actually, I assume he is sane. I am certain that if it is fake, someone will soon find out, and Levi's reputation will be destroyed. He knows that as well as I do. Obviously, I also assume that Rossi is honest -- about his experimental results, that is. I have not seen a shred of evidence that he has lied about his tests, ever. He has lied about other things and other people, including me. He has botched his tests and refused to admit it. What kind of researcher would not put a scope on the cable? or would break open the cable to check for trickery? The cable is broken open. You cannot use a clip on ammeter without breaking out the cable. Usually you bring a pre-separated cable or breakout box supplied by the ammeter manufacturer, rather than taking an X-Acto knife to a regular cable. You can't measure voltage without exposing the cable either. Rossi is definitely not using an HTSC power cable or a gold cable. The breakout box would melt. The testers did neither of these things, and that's perhaps because not one of them was a competent EE, and/or trusted Rossi to not try and fool them. This is silly. No one has actually proposed a method of supplying enough secret electricity to melt a cell. It cannot be done. You need to put aside this nonsense. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:possible error in power-in calculation in Levi et al paper
Why do you think a three wire plus ground feed was used? What's wrong with simple power + ground? Andrew - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 2:48 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:possible error in power-in calculation in Levi et al paper From: Claudio C Fiorini But current #3 was 6.18 A AC, meaning that energy was consumed on that third line. We may assume, that the tension input #3 was left open and that some noise on the hi Z input was read as 6.3 V AC. This has a consequence: the PCE830 computes a wrong total energy. Its value is about 33% too low. Why must we assume this? Looking at the specs of the analyzer, you seem to be making the wrong assumption - and in any event, would not the real power consumed be lower than indicated, not higher? A valid assumption is that this meter does make the proper correction. In fact the specs indicate: - Relation of 3 phases of voltage or asymmetrical current (VUR) - Factor of 3 phases of voltage and asymmetrical current (d0%, d2%) From http://www.industrial-needs.com/technical-data/power-anlayser-PCE-830.htm
Re: [Vo]:possible error in power-in calculation in Levi et al paper
So is the mains used from the wall plug 3-phase or normal 2-phase? Andrew - Original Message - From: Alan Goldwater To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:possible error in power-in calculation in Levi et al paper One other possibility is that two voltage probes (1 and 3) are disconnected and floating about 6 volts apart, near ground. That seems more likely than the very strange phase relationship with all three connected. Claudio wrote: We see also, that tension #3 (V31 of the 3 phases) was only 6.3 V AC, while the other tensions were typical european mains
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
The bottom line is that currently there is no way to deny the thesis that all the output power derives from the input power. The due diligence exercised by all these august testers was quite frankly of a disappointingly low standard, because they failed to obtain a resolution to this question. What is worse, they appear not to have been aware of it, since it finds no mention in the report. Elephant in the room syndrome, quite likely. Andrew - Original Message - From: Rich Murray To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; Rich Murray ; Joshua Cude Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis Thanks, Duncan -- I'd certainly be excited, as would be Joshua Cude, if irrefutable evidence, no faith in anyone needed, arises to launch a scientific explosion of work on cold fusion. My part-time contribution since December 1996 has been to give un-expert detailed critiques of simple facets of cold fusion claims. I am totally willing to be convinced. I'm playing the critical role, because then the enthusiasts have to succeed at the public evidence game, which is much of what drives overall scientific progress. So, the apparent excess heat in this E-Cat HT is several times the apparent electrical input, at up to 960 deg C in a device the size of a bowling pin. So, one of the first candidates for a fake would be at least one well hidden wire, which, if it uses ten time higher voltage, can have a very small diameter conducting gold core -- or it could even be a tube of elastic conducting plastic of much larger size, hidden within a larger plastic water tube -- somewhere in the world by now, this stuff may exist -- or, high voltage conducing wires that are hidden within the insulation of what appears to be conventional power wires -- Jed, is this inane? -- no way to dodge this ball... [PDF] Conducting Polymers and the Evolving Electronics ... - NEPP - NASA nepp.nasa.gov/docuploads/4D1C9F67-F567-4E16.../SyedRevision2.pdf The simplest of these polymers is polyacetelene. The mechanical flexibility and tunable optical properties of some conducting polymers make them attractive ... So, this is proof that subtle, unexpected ways of providing extra electric power may be developed by a highly motivated dare I say?... inventor. So, if what Rossi is actually doing is hiding a thin high temperature tungsten or conducting ceramic straight wire in the center of his device, then the first step is to to find out whether he has or will allow this to be publicly vetted with video records. Joshua Cude raised the question of whether the many evenly spaced horizontal lines on the outside of the glowing case were from the heater resistor wires looking hotter, or were from the resistor wire shadows from an even brighter central source inside the cylinder of heater resistor wires -- has this been ascertained? within the community of service, Rich On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info wrote: I myself am somewhat doubtful about the power measurements, and would like to consider the meter A / meter B issue. There is nothing at all mysterious about this. Meter A is a current clamp, incapable of detecting DC. Meter B is a current shunt or hall effect clamp, capable of detecting DC. The way to bamboozle meter A is a simple diode in series with the load, costing under a dollar. Hardly rocket science. There is, of course, a simple way to uncover such a fraud - just use an oscilloscope to measure the current waveform. It is much cheaper and easier to procure meter A than meter B, and also much easier to use. It is a pain to break the cables and insert current shunts, plus some power is wasted in the shunts. Also, you need a floating power supply and true differential amplifier to power the amplifiers after the shunts. All of this is possible, but a lot more difficult than a simple clamp ammeter. So Rossi would make a good guess that meter A (not DC capable) would be used for the test. Now for the argument that Rossi runs the risk that somebody will try a type B meter (DC capable), or, for that matter, a simple oscilloscope. He simply does not permit such things. He claims not to allow an oscilloscope because it would reveal a proprietary waveform. By keeping tight control over the test conditions, he is able to ensure that his questionable power measurements are not exposed. By not allowing inspection of the heater controller, he keeps the diode (or asymmetrical firing of the Triacs) from public view. Rossi behaves as if a mundane heater control is super-secret technology - does nobody else find this strange? As to the hypothesis that only a fool would give money to an inventor without independent testing, I can only agree. Duncan On 5/24/2013 6:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Several people have proposed
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
The only way to convince the scientific community is via evidence. - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis what you cannot deny is tha even if your conspiracy theory of rossi injecting DC in the plugs, and not toasting the equipment pluggen inside, and trobbling the instruments... even if it is possible, all you propose could be easily detected by simple measure s that an electric technician can do with a home multimeter... opening the cables, adding an intermediate switch box... I agree that the scientists seems, from the few data we have (maybe they tested it and did not write it already, or maybe like on other subjects it is written, but missed)not to have tested those hypothesis... but the fact is that THEY COULD and Rossi could not have controlled that. if rossi was a fraudster he would have constrained the usage of multimeters, of his own cables... I'm sorry, but sometime it is more efficient to use the huma facto reasoning, that take a conspiracy theory position... the bad point is that opposition to LENR is extremely vilent, dishones, and desperate, and no reasoning is possible . Forgettin those detail, let room for irrationality and manipulation of the ignorant... anyway ther is NO HOPE to convince physicists with evidences NO HOPE. as thomas kuhn explain, they CANNOT SEE THE RABBIT ! They have been taine to see the duck, and the rabbit is not allowed in their brain. 2013/5/26 Andrew andrew...@att.net The bottom line is that currently there is no way to deny the thesis that all the output power derives from the input power. The due diligence exercised by all these august testers was quite frankly of a disappointingly low standard, because they failed to obtain a resolution to this question. What is worse, they appear not to have been aware of it, since it finds no mention in the report. Elephant in the room syndrome, quite likely. Andrew - Original Message - From: Rich Murray To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; Rich Murray ; Joshua Cude Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis Thanks, Duncan -- I'd certainly be excited, as would be Joshua Cude, if irrefutable evidence, no faith in anyone needed, arises to launch a scientific explosion of work on cold fusion. My part-time contribution since December 1996 has been to give un-expert detailed critiques of simple facets of cold fusion claims. I am totally willing to be convinced. I'm playing the critical role, because then the enthusiasts have to succeed at the public evidence game, which is much of what drives overall scientific progress. So, the apparent excess heat in this E-Cat HT is several times the apparent electrical input, at up to 960 deg C in a device the size of a bowling pin. So, one of the first candidates for a fake would be at least one well hidden wire, which, if it uses ten time higher voltage, can have a very small diameter conducting gold core -- or it could even be a tube of elastic conducting plastic of much larger size, hidden within a larger plastic water tube -- somewhere in the world by now, this stuff may exist -- or, high voltage conducing wires that are hidden within the insulation of what appears to be conventional power wires -- Jed, is this inane? -- no way to dodge this ball... [PDF] Conducting Polymers and the Evolving Electronics ... - NEPP - NASA nepp.nasa.gov/docuploads/4D1C9F67-F567-4E16.../SyedRevision2.pdf The simplest of these polymers is polyacetelene. The mechanical flexibility and tunable optical properties of some conducting polymers make them attractive ... So, this is proof that subtle, unexpected ways of providing extra electric power may be developed by a highly motivated dare I say?... inventor. So, if what Rossi is actually doing is hiding a thin high temperature tungsten or conducting ceramic straight wire in the center of his device, then the first step is to to find out whether he has or will allow this to be publicly vetted with video records. Joshua Cude raised the question of whether the many evenly spaced horizontal lines on the outside of the glowing case were from the heater resistor wires looking hotter, or were from the resistor wire shadows from an even brighter central source inside the cylinder of heater resistor wires -- has this been ascertained? within the community of service, Rich On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info wrote: I myself am somewhat doubtful about the power measurements, and would like to consider the meter A / meter B issue. There is nothing at all
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Probably; in any case, it would be an improvement. The majority of the paper is taken up by detailed calculations on the thermal emissions from the device - i.e. on the output side. On re-reading the paper, I'm struck by a detail from the March 116 hour test. When the input is on, the power supplied exactly matches (up to error bars) the output power, namely about 820 W. I for one find this a curious data point. It's stated that there's a 35% duty cycle on the input, and for that reason alone we get an over-unity COP result. The TRIAC-based control box appears to have two modes - auto and manual (the paper makes no attempt to help us understand this). In auto mode, there's a switchover to pulsed mode but it's unclear what triggers this. I can only assume it's due to sensing the resistor temperature indirectly via a resistance estimate. In manual mode, the authors describe setting the power level, so presumably this is also an externally available control on the box. But who knows, really? And what is really happening during the OFF state of the waveform? If power is being snuck into the device here, then the COP = 1, and there is no magic. Note that, if this be the case, then it doesn't matter if you run the device for a day or a year; you will always measure over-unity COP even though the real COP is unity. When they describe the dummy measurements, they mention placing the meter in single phase mode directly across the resistor feed wires (it's single phase for the March test). They therefore have access to that place electronically. So in principle, they could have attached a spectrum analyser and a scope. But they didn't, because it wasn't allowed in pulsed mode; they were only allowed to do it in manual mode. Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: The only way to convince the scientific community is via evidence. They will be carrying out a much longer experiment in the future. If they were to have an electrical engineer take a close look at the input power across the entire range of interest and rule out input fake, after which they were to report results similar to the ones that were reported this time around, would this be considered adequate evidence for a prima facie conclusion that Rossi's device is producing excess heat? Eric
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Nice idea in principle, but if the power actually supplied lies outside the frequency range of the measuring equipment, then this won't work. Come to think of it, are there any EE's on this list except for Duncan and myself? Andrew - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:10 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis No knowledge of the waveform would be required if a circuit breaker were used which trips if more power is getting in than Rossi claims. Harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Probably; in any case, it would be an improvement. The majority of the paper is taken up by detailed calculations on the thermal emissions from the device - i.e. on the output side. On re-reading the paper, I'm struck by a detail from the March 116 hour test. When the input is on, the power supplied exactly matches (up to error bars) the output power, namely about 820 W. I for one find this a curious data point. It's stated that there's a 35% duty cycle on the input, and for that reason alone we get an over-unity COP result. The TRIAC-based control box appears to have two modes - auto and manual (the paper makes no attempt to help us understand this). In auto mode, there's a switchover to pulsed mode but it's unclear what triggers this. I can only assume it's due to sensing the resistor temperature indirectly via a resistance estimate. In manual mode, the authors describe setting the power level, so presumably this is also an externally available control on the box. But who knows, really? And what is really happening during the OFF state of the waveform? If power is being snuck into the device here, then the COP = 1, and there is no magic. Note that, if this be the case, then it doesn't matter if you run the device for a day or a year; you will always measure over-unity COP even though the real COP is unity. When they describe the dummy measurements, they mention placing the meter in single phase mode directly across the resistor feed wires (it's single phase for the March test). They therefore have access to that place electronically. So in principle, they could have attached a spectrum analyser and a scope. But they didn't, because it wasn't allowed in pulsed mode; they were only allowed to do it in manual mode. Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: The only way to convince the scientific community is via evidence. They will be carrying out a much longer experiment in the future. If they were to have an electrical engineer take a close look at the input power across the entire range of interest and rule out input fake, after which they were to report results similar to the ones that were reported this time around, would this be considered adequate evidence for a prima facie conclusion that Rossi's device is producing excess heat? Eric
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
I'm talking about the E-Cat. - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis no it is not the way. thomas kuhn explain that it is through building a new theory that - explain all the old evidences, and solve all the old solved problems - give some great advantage to the supporters forget that idea that evidences are useful for normal science... they are accepted only when conforming to the paradigm. they should have been enough in 1989, if not in the fifties. what is currently happening is ridiculous for a non physicist to a point that it may be dangerous for the public credibility of the profession... absurd arguments, denial of facts, propagation of obsolete claims, selective error of logic, selective absence of any human intelligence, selective conspiracy theory, selective illiteracy, selective lack of reading or data, selective blindness , silence on inconvenient facts... it is not stupidity but paradigm change... you don't teach fish to learn about flying... there are flying fish but they are not common, and look fringe for real fish. and sure sky does not exist for real fisk. water is blue at the top, that is what sciences has settled. and if you see something round and yellow or green when flying it is a measurement error 2013/5/26 Andrew andrew...@att.net The only way to convince the scientific community is via evidence. - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis what you cannot deny is tha even if your conspiracy theory of rossi injecting DC in the plugs, and not toasting the equipment pluggen inside, and trobbling the instruments... even if it is possible, all you propose could be easily detected by simple measure s that an electric technician can do with a home multimeter... opening the cables, adding an intermediate switch box... I agree that the scientists seems, from the few data we have (maybe they tested it and did not write it already, or maybe like on other subjects it is written, but missed)not to have tested those hypothesis... but the fact is that THEY COULD and Rossi could not have controlled that. if rossi was a fraudster he would have constrained the usage of multimeters, of his own cables... I'm sorry, but sometime it is more efficient to use the huma facto reasoning, that take a conspiracy theory position... the bad point is that opposition to LENR is extremely vilent, dishones, and desperate, and no reasoning is possible . Forgettin those detail, let room for irrationality and manipulation of the ignorant... anyway ther is NO HOPE to convince physicists with evidences NO HOPE. as thomas kuhn explain, they CANNOT SEE THE RABBIT ! They have been taine to see the duck, and the rabbit is not allowed in their brain. 2013/5/26 Andrew andrew...@att.net The bottom line is that currently there is no way to deny the thesis that all the output power derives from the input power. The due diligence exercised by all these august testers was quite frankly of a disappointingly low standard, because they failed to obtain a resolution to this question. What is worse, they appear not to have been aware of it, since it finds no mention in the report. Elephant in the room syndrome, quite likely. Andrew - Original Message - From: Rich Murray To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; Rich Murray ; Joshua Cude Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis Thanks, Duncan -- I'd certainly be excited, as would be Joshua Cude, if irrefutable evidence, no faith in anyone needed, arises to launch a scientific explosion of work on cold fusion. My part-time contribution since December 1996 has been to give un-expert detailed critiques of simple facets of cold fusion claims. I am totally willing to be convinced. I'm playing the critical role, because then the enthusiasts have to succeed at the public evidence game, which is much of what drives overall scientific progress. So, the apparent excess heat in this E-Cat HT is several times the apparent electrical input, at up to 960 deg C in a device the size of a bowling pin. So, one of the first candidates for a fake would be at least one well hidden wire, which, if it uses ten time higher voltage, can have a very small diameter conducting gold core -- or it could even be a tube of elastic conducting plastic of much larger size, hidden within a larger plastic water tube -- somewhere
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
60 KHz limit? Where did you get that figure? Are you an EE? - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis with skin effect, and 60kHz limit, DC is the only option, assuming other components plugge are not destroyed immediately. 2013/5/26 Andrew andrew...@att.net Nice idea in principle, but if the power actually supplied lies outside the frequency range of the measuring equipment, then this won't work. Come to think of it, are there any EE's on this list except for Duncan and myself? Andrew - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:10 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis No knowledge of the waveform would be required if a circuit breaker were used which trips if more power is getting in than Rossi claims. Harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Probably; in any case, it would be an improvement. The majority of the paper is taken up by detailed calculations on the thermal emissions from the device - i.e. on the output side. On re-reading the paper, I'm struck by a detail from the March 116 hour test. When the input is on, the power supplied exactly matches (up to error bars) the output power, namely about 820 W. I for one find this a curious data point. It's stated that there's a 35% duty cycle on the input, and for that reason alone we get an over-unity COP result. The TRIAC-based control box appears to have two modes - auto and manual (the paper makes no attempt to help us understand this). In auto mode, there's a switchover to pulsed mode but it's unclear what triggers this. I can only assume it's due to sensing the resistor temperature indirectly via a resistance estimate. In manual mode, the authors describe setting the power level, so presumably this is also an externally available control on the box. But who knows, really? And what is really happening during the OFF state of the waveform? If power is being snuck into the device here, then the COP = 1, and there is no magic. Note that, if this be the case, then it doesn't matter if you run the device for a day or a year; you will always measure over-unity COP even though the real COP is unity. When they describe the dummy measurements, they mention placing the meter in single phase mode directly across the resistor feed wires (it's single phase for the March test). They therefore have access to that place electronically. So in principle, they could have attached a spectrum analyser and a scope. But they didn't, because it wasn't allowed in pulsed mode; they were only allowed to do it in manual mode. Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: The only way to convince the scientific community is via evidence. They will be carrying out a much longer experiment in the future. If they were to have an electrical engineer take a close look at the input power across the entire range of interest and rule out input fake, after which they were to report results similar to the ones that were reported this time around, would this be considered adequate evidence for a prima facie conclusion that Rossi's device is producing excess heat? Eric
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
What about a giraffe wearing a beret? Did you mean for that to make sense? - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis what about a fuse? or a light bulb(s)? harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Nice idea in principle, but if the power actually supplied lies outside the frequency range of the measuring equipment, then this won't work. Come to think of it, are there any EE's on this list except for Duncan and myself? Andrew - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:10 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis No knowledge of the waveform would be required if a circuit breaker were used which trips if more power is getting in than Rossi claims. Harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Probably; in any case, it would be an improvement. The majority of the paper is taken up by detailed calculations on the thermal emissions from the device - i.e. on the output side. On re-reading the paper, I'm struck by a detail from the March 116 hour test. When the input is on, the power supplied exactly matches (up to error bars) the output power, namely about 820 W. I for one find this a curious data point. It's stated that there's a 35% duty cycle on the input, and for that reason alone we get an over-unity COP result. The TRIAC-based control box appears to have two modes - auto and manual (the paper makes no attempt to help us understand this). In auto mode, there's a switchover to pulsed mode but it's unclear what triggers this. I can only assume it's due to sensing the resistor temperature indirectly via a resistance estimate. In manual mode, the authors describe setting the power level, so presumably this is also an externally available control on the box. But who knows, really? And what is really happening during the OFF state of the waveform? If power is being snuck into the device here, then the COP = 1, and there is no magic. Note that, if this be the case, then it doesn't matter if you run the device for a day or a year; you will always measure over-unity COP even though the real COP is unity. When they describe the dummy measurements, they mention placing the meter in single phase mode directly across the resistor feed wires (it's single phase for the March test). They therefore have access to that place electronically. So in principle, they could have attached a spectrum analyser and a scope. But they didn't, because it wasn't allowed in pulsed mode; they were only allowed to do it in manual mode.
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
A fuse blows when a certain current passes through it. P = V I cos (theta); power is voltage x current x power factor. Thus you can supply high power at low current if you use high voltage, which is how a thin wire can be used to sneak in high power. Jed made the same mistake as you, thinking that you need high current to get high power; it's not necessarily the case. Incidentally, I've known all this kind of stuff since age 9, when I began building radios. The other aspect of the power meter measurements by these physicists is the shape factor, which has been mentioned here. It was apparently out of range of this instrument. It makes perfect sense that, since the majority of folks here seem not to be EE's, then all the possibilities for fraud on the input side simply don't appear within the scope of their understanding. That's just the way it is. And I suspect that the testers were similarly cognitively constrained. Andrew - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:15 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis I am not an EE...i'm not even a electrician...but I thought a fuse blows when a certain level of power passes through it. harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: What about a giraffe wearing a beret? Did you mean for that to make sense? - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis what about a fuse? or a light bulb(s)? harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Nice idea in principle, but if the power actually supplied lies outside the frequency range of the measuring equipment, then this won't work. Come to think of it, are there any EE's on this list except for Duncan and myself? Andrew - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:10 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis No knowledge of the waveform would be required if a circuit breaker were used which trips if more power is getting in than Rossi claims. Harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Probably; in any case, it would be an improvement. The majority of the paper is taken up by detailed calculations on the thermal emissions from the device - i.e. on the output side. On re-reading the paper, I'm struck by a detail from the March 116 hour test. When the input is on, the power supplied exactly matches (up to error bars) the output power, namely about 820 W. I for one find this a curious data point. It's stated that there's a 35% duty cycle on the input, and for that reason alone we get an over-unity COP result. The TRIAC-based control box appears to have two modes - auto and manual (the paper makes no attempt to help us understand this). In auto mode, there's a switchover to pulsed mode but it's unclear what triggers this. I can only assume it's due to sensing the resistor temperature indirectly via a resistance estimate. In manual mode, the authors describe setting the power level, so presumably this is also an externally available control on the box. But who knows, really? And what is really happening during the OFF state of the waveform? If power is being snuck into the device here, then the COP = 1, and there is no magic. Note that, if this be the case, then it doesn't matter if you run the device for a day or a year; you will always measure over-unity COP even though the real COP is unity. When they describe the dummy measurements, they mention placing the meter in single phase mode directly across the resistor feed wires (it's single phase for the March test). They therefore have access to that place electronically. So in principle, they could have attached a spectrum analyser and a scope. But they didn't, because it wasn't allowed in pulsed mode; they were only allowed to do it in manual mode.
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
If it's silly to urge prudence, then go ahead and be as wise as you like. Your handwaving generalities and misrepresentations of my position don't progress the discussion any further, unfortunately. I will say two things: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and, if this were Fleischmann, I would not be nearly as concerned. Andrew - Original Message - From: Randy Wuller To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis Andrew: Your point is not well taken. Proof is a continuum. In this case you must posit fraud to counter proof. Fraud may or may not be actually possible in this case but it can always be imagined. The real question is whether the scientific community is required to ignore these results because they can imagine fraud. Such a position is beyond lunacy to me. Of course not. What they should do is consider them in light of the range of proof from zero to conclusive and if they feel conclusive proof is absent, insist that the next investigation remedy the issue. They certainly should not take the position that since we can imagine a possibility where the proof is not conclusive that we can then, 1) ignore the results, or 2) without proof of the imagined exception conclude NO proof exists. You seem to be insisting on black or white even to embrace the possible. This the kind of silly position taken by Cude. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On May 26, 2013, at 1:19 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: The bottom line is that currently there is no way to deny the thesis that all the output power derives from the input power. The due diligence exercised by all these august testers was quite frankly of a disappointingly low standard, because they failed to obtain a resolution to this question. What is worse, they appear not to have been aware of it, since it finds no mention in the report. Elephant in the room syndrome, quite likely. Andrew - Original Message - From: Rich Murray To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; Rich Murray ; Joshua Cude Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis Thanks, Duncan -- I'd certainly be excited, as would be Joshua Cude, if irrefutable evidence, no faith in anyone needed, arises to launch a scientific explosion of work on cold fusion. My part-time contribution since December 1996 has been to give un-expert detailed critiques of simple facets of cold fusion claims. I am totally willing to be convinced. I'm playing the critical role, because then the enthusiasts have to succeed at the public evidence game, which is much of what drives overall scientific progress. So, the apparent excess heat in this E-Cat HT is several times the apparent electrical input, at up to 960 deg C in a device the size of a bowling pin. So, one of the first candidates for a fake would be at least one well hidden wire, which, if it uses ten time higher voltage, can have a very small diameter conducting gold core -- or it could even be a tube of elastic conducting plastic of much larger size, hidden within a larger plastic water tube -- somewhere in the world by now, this stuff may exist -- or, high voltage conducing wires that are hidden within the insulation of what appears to be conventional power wires -- Jed, is this inane? -- no way to dodge this ball... [PDF] Conducting Polymers and the Evolving Electronics ... - NEPP - NASA nepp.nasa.gov/docuploads/4D1C9F67-F567-4E16.../SyedRevision2.pdf The simplest of these polymers is polyacetelene. The mechanical flexibility and tunable optical properties of some conducting polymers make them attractive ... So, this is proof that subtle, unexpected ways of providing extra electric power may be developed by a highly motivated dare I say?... inventor. So, if what Rossi is actually doing is hiding a thin high temperature tungsten or conducting ceramic straight wire in the center of his device, then the first step is to to find out whether he has or will allow this to be publicly vetted with video records. Joshua Cude raised the question of whether the many evenly spaced horizontal lines on the outside of the glowing case were from the heater resistor wires looking hotter, or were from the resistor wire shadows from an even brighter central source inside the cylinder of heater resistor wires -- has this been ascertained? within the community of service, Rich On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info wrote: I myself am somewhat doubtful about the power measurements, and would like to consider the meter A / meter B issue. There is nothing at all mysterious about this. Meter A is a current clamp, incapable
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Please show me the page number on which the figure of 60 KHz appears. I cannot find it at the link, and neither can I find it in the User Manual (linked there also). This is the second time I've been through these two documents. Are you sure you don't mean 60 Hz, which appears everywhere? Your skin effect argument is curious (I do understand what you mean). As far as I know, Megawatt LF transmitters (60 - 250 KHz) seem to manage just fine with wire feeds. It is all about the geometry of the conductors. To take a reductio ad absurdum as illustration, a copper cylinder with a 1 kilometre radius will transmit very high frequencies just fine. The skin may be thin, but the conductance area (in the plane orthogonal to current flow) will be huge, and it's area that matters. Also, ask yourself about how DSL works at multi-megabits/second, too. It uses POTS telephone wires. Andrew - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis that is what I've heard, confirmed by the spec of the powermeter http://www.industrial-needs.com/technical-data/power-anlayser-PCE-830.htm which have sampling period around that value by the way I'm EE, but I know enough to be careful about everything... What I'm sure is that if any fraud can be missed, any fraud can be found if you are free to choose the instrument, and DC is easy to find. This is why Nelso insisted to be free with Rossi in an earlier test and was suspiscious... This is why he was so positive with defkalion to be free... It is easier the detect a fraud with dummy instruments, and psychology, than with the best instruments. below 60kW the power meter does the job, above 60kHz the skin effect block most and cause overheating of cables . 2013/5/26 Andrew andrew...@att.net 60 KHz limit? Where did you get that figure? Are you an EE? - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis with skin effect, and 60kHz limit, DC is the only option, assuming other components plugge are not destroyed immediately. 2013/5/26 Andrew andrew...@att.net Nice idea in principle, but if the power actually supplied lies outside the frequency range of the measuring equipment, then this won't work. Come to think of it, are there any EE's on this list except for Duncan and myself? Andrew - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:10 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis No knowledge of the waveform would be required if a circuit breaker were used which trips if more power is getting in than Rossi claims. Harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Probably; in any case, it would be an improvement. The majority of the paper is taken up by detailed calculations on the thermal emissions from the device - i.e. on the output side. On re-reading the paper, I'm struck by a detail from the March 116 hour test. When the input is on, the power supplied exactly matches (up to error bars) the output power, namely about 820 W. I for one find this a curious data point. It's stated that there's a 35% duty cycle on the input, and for that reason alone we get an over-unity COP result. The TRIAC-based control box appears to have two modes - auto and manual (the paper makes no attempt to help us understand this). In auto mode, there's a switchover to pulsed mode but it's unclear what triggers this. I can only assume it's due to sensing the resistor temperature indirectly via a resistance estimate. In manual mode, the authors describe setting the power level, so presumably this is also an externally available control on the box. But who knows, really? And what is really happening during the OFF state of the waveform? If power is being snuck into the device here, then the COP = 1, and there is no magic. Note that, if this be the case, then it doesn't matter if you run the device for a day or a year; you will always measure over-unity COP even though the real COP is unity. When they describe the dummy measurements, they mention placing the meter in single phase mode directly across the resistor feed wires (it's single phase for the March test). They therefore have access to that place electronically. So in principle, they could have attached a spectrum analyser and a scope. But they didn't, because it wasn't allowed in pulsed mode; they were only allowed to do it in manual mode. Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric
Re: [Vo]:possible error in power-in calculation in Levi et al paper
Hmm. I see kilowatt levels. The input power was supposed to be 360 W on the 1st test and 280 W (pulsed effective) on the March test. I don't have the detail on these readouts, though. I think the manual might help with interpretation. Andrew - Original Message - From: Sunil Shah To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:55 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:possible error in power-in calculation in Levi et al paper I still had the image (R_123517565_2.jpg) in my browser cache, uploaded it here http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=dnn8k0s=5 HTH .s -- Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 13:22:47 +0200 Subject: RE: [Vo]:possible error in power-in calculation in Levi et al paper From: claudio.c.fior...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com First of all, it is interesting to see that that picture has been deleted. A few hours after my comment. I don't know why, but i don't want to speculate. I will look for a copy. Filename was R_123517565_2.jpg Perhaps Google finds something. If I find it, i will tell it here. ...
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
If you are a scientist, then what you do is cut the Gordian knot of doubt. The resistors are powered single-phase in the latest incarnation of the control, meaning a normal 2-wire connection. You put a scope across these while the device is in operation, and ditto a spectrum analyzer. If you are disallowed to do so - not by some fundamental law of physics, but by Rossi - then you conclude that it is not possible to conclude anything about the real COP value. That's if you're an honest scientist. YMMV. Andrew - Original Message - From: Ransom Wuller rwul...@peaknet.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:44 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis I loved Carl Sagan but the biggest mistake he made in his lifetime was making that phrase popular. A claim requires evidence, it doesn't matter what kind of claim. If what you are saying is science can't consider the possibility of something extraordinary unless they are clobbered over the head into submission, science is tantamount to religion and not science. Obviously, for science to conclude anything the proof needs to be conclusive, but that is true of any claim. I would never urge a lack of prudence. But your discussion (what you are calling it) can't be advanced to certainty and that seems to be what you are after. I have seen and read enough to conclude that some deception can be imagined. There is likely no proof of deception and probably won't be any. If some is shown it sould be considered, but lacking any what more can be said. Everyone is likely to have a different opinion as to how likely such a crime is. The question is, given the above what do you do as a scientist regarding the recently disclosed report? I was simply pointing out that ignoring it or concluding without proof of fraud that it isn't some evidence is at least imprudent. Ransom If it's silly to urge prudence, then go ahead and be as wise as you like. Your handwaving generalities and misrepresentations of my position don't progress the discussion any further, unfortunately. I will say two things: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and, if this were Fleischmann, I would not be nearly as concerned. Andrew - Original Message - From: Randy Wuller To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis Andrew: Your point is not well taken. Proof is a continuum. In this case you must posit fraud to counter proof. Fraud may or may not be actually possible in this case but it can always be imagined. The real question is whether the scientific community is required to ignore these results because they can imagine fraud. Such a position is beyond lunacy to me. Of course not. What they should do is consider them in light of the range of proof from zero to conclusive and if they feel conclusive proof is absent, insist that the next investigation remedy the issue. They certainly should not take the position that since we can imagine a possibility where the proof is not conclusive that we can then, 1) ignore the results, or 2) without proof of the imagined exception conclude NO proof exists. You seem to be insisting on black or white even to embrace the possible. This the kind of silly position taken by Cude. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On May 26, 2013, at 1:19 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: The bottom line is that currently there is no way to deny the thesis that all the output power derives from the input power. The due diligence exercised by all these august testers was quite frankly of a disappointingly low standard, because they failed to obtain a resolution to this question. What is worse, they appear not to have been aware of it, since it finds no mention in the report. Elephant in the room syndrome, quite likely. Andrew - Original Message - From: Rich Murray To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; Rich Murray ; Joshua Cude Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis Thanks, Duncan -- I'd certainly be excited, as would be Joshua Cude, if irrefutable evidence, no faith in anyone needed, arises to launch a scientific explosion of work on cold fusion. My part-time contribution since December 1996 has been to give un-expert detailed critiques of simple facets of cold fusion claims. I am totally willing to be convinced. I'm playing the critical role, because then the enthusiasts have to succeed at the public evidence game, which is much of what drives overall scientific progress. So, the apparent excess heat in this E-Cat HT is several times the apparent electrical input, at up to 960 deg C in a device the size of a bowling pin. So, one of the first candidates for a fake would be at least one well hidden wire, which, if it uses ten time
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
There's one thing I know we can agree upon regarding the usefulness of Rossi's device - it would make a great toaster.
Re: [Vo]:possible error in power-in calculation in Levi et al paper
The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure trustworthiness of the measurements performed. This awfully-worded decription indicates to me that the measurements were done on the input (mains) side of the control box. MAINS BOX DEVICE Dec Test: 3-phase mains, 3-phase control Mar Test: 3-phase mains, 1-phase control Andrew - Original Message - From: Alan Goldwater a...@magicsound.us To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:possible error in power-in calculation in Levi et al paper The voltage measurements are identified by the nomenclature of the display, so v12 refers to the calculated voltage difference between the phase1 probe and the phase2 probe. This is the standard measurement technique for delta-connected three phase power. The meter hardware measures the voltage from each phase wire to neutral, but that data is not displayed (although it could and should have been). The current display indicates what is measured through each of the phase wires by the clamp-on ammeter probes. Regarding the placement of the measurement probes, the report states on page 5: The instrument was connected directly to the E-Cat HT cables by means of three clamp ammeters, and three probes for voltage measurement. However, I note that on page 16 describing the March test it states: The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure trustworthiness of the measurements performed. Although it isn't completely clear, I take these two statements to mean that in the first test the measurement point was on the output wires of the triac based blue control box. My comments therefore were an attempt to deduce something useful about the waveforms being fed to the E-Cat, in the spirit of reverse-engineering. Regarding the instrument itself, the spec shows a transient capture capability of 16 usec, which would correspond to an upper frequency limit of 62 kHz. That is probably the source of another comment mentioning this figure. The wires from the control box to the E-Cat appear to be standard solid-core electric power wires. These would be capable of carrying substantial current at several hundred kHz, such a might be produced by a HF switching power supply. What the meter used would show from such an input can only be speculated. I am an EE, specializing in digital and analog audio systems and acoustics. On 5/26/2013 3:53 AM, Claudio C Fiorini wrote: Alan: you measure the tension or between two phases (not between two pairs of phases as you say, excuse me), or between the phases and neutral. An open input line (usually with high impedance in the megaohm range) with a bit of cable leads always to noisy signals in the mV or even V range. Test it youself with a normal electronic digital voltmeter with an unconnected cable (I mean unattached to the 240 V AC tension) attached to the input. Perhaps in the middle of the Gobi desert or on the moon you will not catch noise, but inside a house or laboratory you will see noise. I repeat: Rossi said clearly that the measurement were made before the control box. (see his blog JONP, i think it was yesterday) This rules out any strange phase shift between the AC tensions leading to false tension measurements made between to phases. Furthermore: if there was such an exotic phase shift between two phases, you would expect to see also exotic tensions between the other lines. Don't you agree with me? At this is not the case. So, the hypothesis of an open tension input is not confuted by your comment. Of course i do not question this instrument PCE830. But: with a near zero tension, the power calculated will result in a very small value, here only 39 Watt.
Re: [Vo]:possible error in power-in calculation in Levi et al paper
The report states that video was taken at 1 fps. Can the authors of the report not publish this? At least then we can actually see the readouts. Andrew - Original Message - From: Claudio C Fiorini To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:possible error in power-in calculation in Levi et al paper I cite Andrea Rossi: Andrea Rossi May 24th, 2013 at 4:56 AM To the Readers: A friend of mine, Prof. of Electric Measurements , put me a question that I think is important to reproduce here: ” The measurement of the electric energy consumed by the resistance could have been affected by the fact that a particular wave has been produced that the instrument of measurement could have not been able to measure”. This question is important. The answer is: the measurement of the electric energy that has been consumed by the resistances has been made BETWEEN THE PLUG OF THE GRID AND THE CONTROL PANEL, NOT BETWEEN THE CONTROL PANEL AND THE RESISTANCES. Therefore the wave of the electricity in the point in which the electric energy consumed has been measured was a full, regular wave od alternate current ( the instrumentation used allowed also to see the wave form). AGAIN: THE MEASUREMENT MADE BY THE PCE 830 HAS BEEN TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE GRID OF THE OF THE ENERGY DISTRIBUTOR; AFTER THE MEASUREMENT OF ENERGY , THE ENERGY IS ENVOYED TO THE REGULATION SYSTEM ( ANGLE PHASE TRIAC), THEREFORE THE SOLE ENERGY MEASURED IS 380 VOLTS 3 PHASES 50 Hz !!! Obviously the Examiners wanted to measure the energy consumed between the plug of the grid and the control panel exactly for this reason. This can be also found in the Report. Warm Regards, A.R. All these problems and questions are related to the fact that this paper was not reviewed (my opinion). Rossi seems to speak only about the last test in march 2013. The problem remains: how is it possible that a heating resistor may produce such a massive phase shift with the result of a o.48 power factor. Inside the reactor there is no place for any complex electronic system of any kind, the hih temperature of 800+ degrees Celsius would destroy condensers and any soldering. Measuring the tension between two phases would result (in Italy) in a tension of about 400 V AC, but not 237 or 238 V. But we may expect such a tension around 230 V AC measuring between one of the phases and the neutral pole. In USA and Japan it would be 191 V AC / 110 V AC. The voltage between line conductors is √3 times the phase conductor to neutral voltage. Isn't it?
Re: [Vo]:Racing Towards Very Different Hydrogen Futures
I'm not very versed in the engineering of heat engines versus electrical generators. If you want to use a heat source like the E-Cat (assuming it's as advertised with COP 1) for powering a drive train in a car, is it necessary to go through an electrical conversion and use electric motors; is it more efficient to go directly to a heat engine? Andrew - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 10:58 AM Subject: [Vo]:Racing Towards Very Different Hydrogen Futures Racing Towards Very Different Hydrogen Futures Yet, while Aston Martin and the Rapide S were preparing to make history in Germany, south of the Alps in Ferrara, Italy, just below a bend in the River Po, in a nondescript industrial park, a potentially far more historic test of hydrogen technology took place in March of this year. http://www.evworld.com/focus.cfm?cid=147 Harry
Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Yup, the solution is to do a proper input power measurement under NDA. Your further comment about fuses shows that I wasted my time explaining their operation to you :( And that's not the whole story, since there's an issue of frequency and response time too. But that's for another day. Andrew - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis Maybe a series of fuses with different ratings would work? Your way of reasoning is based on the assumption that Rossi is acting in bad faith. Instead you should reason from the good faith assumption that Rossi has a legitimate reason for keeping the waveform secret. On the other hand, you have legitimate concerns that more power might be getting in. With your knowledge you should be able to devise a solution that would allay your concerns and respect Rossi wishes at the same time. Harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: A fuse blows when a certain current passes through it. P = V I cos (theta); power is voltage x current x power factor. Thus you can supply high power at low current if you use high voltage, which is how a thin wire can be used to sneak in high power. Jed made the same mistake as you, thinking that you need high current to get high power; it's not necessarily the case. Incidentally, I've known all this kind of stuff since age 9, when I began building radios. The other aspect of the power meter measurements by these physicists is the shape factor, which has been mentioned here. It was apparently out of range of this instrument. It makes perfect sense that, since the majority of folks here seem not to be EE's, then all the possibilities for fraud on the input side simply don't appear within the scope of their understanding. That's just the way it is. And I suspect that the testers were similarly cognitively constrained. Andrew - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:15 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis I am not an EE...i'm not even a electrician...but I thought a fuse blows when a certain level of power passes through it. harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: What about a giraffe wearing a beret? Did you mean for that to make sense? - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis what about a fuse? or a light bulb(s)? harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Nice idea in principle, but if the power actually supplied lies outside the frequency range of the measuring equipment, then this won't work. Come to think of it, are there any EE's on this list except for Duncan and myself? Andrew - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:10 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis No knowledge of the waveform would be required if a circuit breaker were used which trips if more power is getting in than Rossi claims. Harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Probably; in any case, it would be an improvement. The majority of the paper is taken up by detailed calculations on the thermal emissions from the device - i.e. on the output side. On re-reading the paper, I'm struck by a detail from the March 116 hour test. When the input is on, the power supplied exactly matches (up to error bars) the output power, namely about 820 W. I for one find this a curious data point. It's stated that there's a 35% duty cycle on the input, and for that reason alone we get an over-unity COP result. The TRIAC-based control box appears to have two modes - auto and manual (the paper makes no attempt to help us understand this). In auto mode, there's a switchover to pulsed mode but it's unclear what triggers this. I can only assume it's due to sensing the resistor temperature indirectly via a resistance estimate. In manual mode, the authors describe setting the power level, so presumably this is also an externally available control on the box. But who knows, really? And what is really happening during the OFF state of the waveform? If power is being snuck into the device here, then the COP = 1, and there is no magic. Note that, if this be the case, then it doesn't matter if you run the device
Re: [Vo]:possible error in power-in calculation in Levi et al paper
This is a still from Dr. No, the very first Bond movie (1962). The irony is inescapable. What's crazy weird is that I was watching this very movie while the pic switch was going on; I haven't watched it for many years. I have no idea why I decided to pick it. Synchronicity, anyone? Andrew - Original Message - From: Claudio C Fiorini To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:00 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:possible error in power-in calculation in Levi et al paper Someone is playing a game with us. The picture is back: http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/thumbs/R_123517565_2.jpg
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
My position is nicely summarised in that final paragraph. So if you attack me, you attack by proxy one of the authors of the paper. I'm gratified that at least one of the testers had his head screwed on. I woke up this morning thinking about a wire through the bench into the control box. Hartman is my kind of guy. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:21 PM Subject: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments A Swedish correspondent sent me this link: http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2t=560sid=5450c28dab532569dee72f88a43a56f0start=330 This is a discussion in Swedish, which Google does a good job translating. Before you translate it, you will see that in the middle of it is a message from one of the authors, Torbjörn Hartman, in English. Here it is, with a few typos corrected. QUOTE: Remember that there were not only three clamps to measure the current on three phases but also four connectors to measure the voltage on the three phases and the zero/ground line. The protective ground line was not used and laid curled up on the bench. The only possibility to fool the power-meter then is to raise the DC voltage on all the four lines but that also means that the current must have an other way to leave the system and I tried to find such hidden connections when we were there. The control box had no connections through the wood on the table. All cables in and out were accounted for. The E-cat was just lying on the metal frame that was only free-standing on the floor with no cables going to it. The little socket, where the mains cables from the wall connector where connected with the cables to the box and where we had the clamps, was screwed to the wood of the bench but there was no screws going through the metal sheet under the bench. The sheet showed no marks on it under the interesting parts (or elsewhere as I remember it). Of course, if the white little socket was rigged inside and the metal screws was long enough to go just through the wood, touching the metal sheet underneath, then the bench itself could lead current. I do not remember if I actually checked the bench frame for cables connected to it but I probably did. However, I have a close-up picture of the socket and it looks normal and the screws appear to be of normal size. I also have pictures of all the connectors going to the powermeter and of the frame on the floor. I took a picture every day of the connectors and cables to the powermeter in case anyone would tamper with them when we were out. I lifted the control box to check what was under it and when doing so I tried to measure the weight and it is muck lighter than a car battery. The box itself has a weight, of course, and what is in it can not be much. All these observations take away a number of ways to tamper with our measurements but there can still be things that we didn't think of and that is the reason why we only can claim indications of and not proof of anomalous heat production. We must have more control over the whole situation before we can talk about proof. Best regards, Torbjörn END QUOTE - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
Indeed it has Dave. That's heartening. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments I assume that your opinion of the test guys has improved according to your latest statement. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 5:29 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments My position is nicely summarised in that final paragraph. So if you attack me, you attack by proxy one of the authors of the paper. I'm gratified that at least one of the testers had his head screwed on. I woke up this morning thinking about a wire through the bench into the control box. Hartman is my kind of guy. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:21 PM Subject: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments A Swedish correspondent sent me this link: http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2t=560sid=5450c28dab532569dee72f88a43a56f0start=330 This is a discussion in Swedish, which Google does a good job translating. Before you translate it, you will see that in the middle of it is a message from one of the authors, Torbjörn Hartman, in English. Here it is, with a few typos corrected. QUOTE: Remember that there were not only three clamps to measure the current on three phases but also four connectors to measure the voltage on the three phases and the zero/ground line. The protective ground line was not used and laid curled up on the bench. The only possibility to fool the power-meter then is to raise the DC voltage on all the four lines but that also means that the current must have an other way to leave the system and I tried to find such hidden connections when we were there. The control box had no connections through the wood on the table. All cables in and out were accounted for. The E-cat was just lying on the metal frame that was only free-standing on the floor with no cables going to it. The little socket, where the mains cables from the wall connector where connected with the cables to the box and where we had the clamps, was screwed to the wood of the bench but there was no screws going through the metal sheet under the bench. The sheet showed no marks on it under the interesting parts (or elsewhere as I remember it). Of course, if the white little socket was rigged inside and the metal screws was long enough to go just through the wood, touching the metal sheet underneath, then the bench itself could lead current. I do not remember if I actually checked the bench frame for cables connected to it but I probably did. However, I have a close-up picture of the socket and it looks normal and the screws appear to be of normal size. I also have pictures of all the connectors going to the powermeter and of the frame on the floor. I took a picture every day of the connectors and cables to the powermeter in case anyone would tamper with them when we were out. I lifted the control box to check what was under it and when doing so I tried to measure the weight and it is muck lighter than a car battery. The box itself has a weight, of course, and what is in it can not be much. All these observations take away a number of ways to tamper with our measurements but there can still be things that we didn't think of and that is the reason why we only can claim indications of and not proof of anomalous heat production. We must have more control over the whole situation before we can talk about proof. Best regards, Torbjörn END QUOTE - Jed
[Vo]: E-Cat in the press very recently
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-05/24/cold-fusion-research The comments section is, as is to be expected, rich. Notably this link, a Levi interview, is cited http://www.reddit.com/r/LENR/comments/1etk5g/brief_interview_with_levi_on_the_recent_paper/ http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Third-Party-Tests-Prove-Rossis-E-Cat-HT2-Works.html Again, check the comments. They're cottoning on to the 60 KHz limit. Andrew
Re: [Vo]:possible error in power-in calculation in Levi et al paper
My sense is that the over-arching sentiment among those of us who look at all this with a jaundiced eye is that an Addendum to the report be produced by the original team. This ought to contain a lot more detail, such as is being discussed here. It would certainly serve to dispel a lot of idle speculation. Hartman got the ball rolling, but there is much more that is as yet unmentioned. If anyone here has personal contacts leading to Hartman et al, now would be a good time to prevail upon the gentlemen's good graces. Andrew - Original Message - From: Alan Goldwater To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:possible error in power-in calculation in Levi et al paper The picture of the power monitor that started this discussion is not part of the official report, and might have been made during a setup or adjustment. It is interesting in that it gives us some otherwise unavailable clues as to the measurement setup, and in that context it has been a useful starting place for analysis. I now believe it is showing a single voltage probe connected and the others just lying on the bench. The problem then is that the watch shows a time stamp that may be during the test period. If someone could find documented start and end times for the December test, that question can be answered. On 5/26/2013 2:25 PM, Irb wrote: I thought 230V was Neutral to Phase, Root 3 x 230 approx 400V is phase to phase voltage, snip
[Vo]: About the March test
I need to summarise my factoids on this test in one place, as opposed to the scattered remarks I've made thus far. I'm focusing here on the pulsed regime, which constituted the bulk of the test time. 1. There exists controversy as to where exactly the power measurements were made. Was it on the input (mains) side or on the output (device) side of the control box? Recall that mains was 3-phase and device drive was single phase. I will assume here that it was on the mains side, and thus 3-phase. 2. The report shows the device temperature varying synchronously, up to a small phase lag, with the pulses. This is expected behaviour. 3. The report states that, in the pulse ON state, the input and output powers are identical (~ 810 W), up to measurement error. This implies that the chief component of any jiggery-pokery is going to happen during the pulse OFF state. 4. In the pulse OFF state, the only power draw reported is due to the control box (~110 W). Even when it's assumed, maximally conservatively, that 100% of this power gets to the device (and is therefore not consumed within the control box), the report still calculates a healthily over-unity COP. If you put all this together, then there appear to be only two candidates for deception A) The mains feed contains a DC offset, and/or contains RF power higher than about 60 KHz, since then in either case it's undetectable to the meter. B) There's something in the control box that makes up the difference. B) seems unlikely because it would require batteries, and Hartman states that it was much lighter than that. Battery technology does not exist that could be that light, and/or occupy so little volume, and make up that total energy difference as measured over 100+ hours. Therefore, it seems that the only workable theory of possible deception is A). Andrew
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Eric, The idea here is that the extras (DC and/or RF) are undetectable to the meter using clamp ammeters (we know this for a fact), and when this extra gets passed on to the control box, it's able to pass them on to the device, perhaps with some customisation. The device, being chiefly ohmic, will dissipate DC and will likely also dissipate RF. So no customisation by the control box of the extras is in principle necessary - the power simply gets passed along to the device, which consumes it and generates heat as a result. Now, as I've described, the shenanigans chiefly occur during the pulse OFF state, so there will have to be some customisation in the control box. The idea here is to dissipate the extras during pulse ON and pass them along during pulse OFF. The mains doesn't know about the pulse schedule, so cannot itself switch the extras in or out (actually, a Byzantine arrangement could be made to work in this way, but I'm not going that far out). Since no type of electronics control circuitry could survive colocated with the device, the implication is that the control box has to dissipate significant power continuously. That raises a question about the control box temperature. Since it's a sealed unit, and we're talking a couple hundred watts at least, it would have to get bloody hot. There's another data point we don't have. But you'd think they would have mentioned it. I'm talking myself out of this, aren't I? :) Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: B) seems unlikely because it would require batteries, and Hartman states that it was much lighter than that. Battery technology does not exist that could be that light, and/or occupy so little volume, and make up that total energy difference as measured over 100+ hours. Therefore, it seems that the only workable theory of possible deception is A). I recall Hartman clarifying that measurements were taken on the mains side (from Jed's post). I am not too familiar with circuitry. I assume that either (1) the measurement equipment (including the laptop) will need some kind of single-phase conversion in order to work off of the same mains, or (2) they will have to be routed to a separate source (in the case where the mains side has been tampered with). Assuming (1) for the moment, how easy or hard would it be to filter out hidden DC or AC when constructing the single phase conversion in order to protect the measurement equipment? Would you need a heavy transformer? Eric
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Eric makes a good point though. It therefore looks like there exist at least two separate mains outlets in the lab - one being 3-phase for the experiment, and one being conventional single-phase, which is what the laptop adapters will expect. I am surprised that 3-phase is deemed necessary, because at the power levels being pumped in the experiment, single-phase mains is wholly adequate, up to a few kilowatts. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test A transformer is not needed. Solid state switching regulators are used in most cases to handle the input voltage across filter capacitors following diode rectifiers. Safety is achieved by floating the input relative to the output voltage generation circuitry. I would expect to see pf correction in a modern application once the dust settles. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 7:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: B) seems unlikely because it would require batteries, and Hartman states that it was much lighter than that. Battery technology does not exist that could be that light, and/or occupy so little volume, and make up that total energy difference as measured over 100+ hours. Therefore, it seems that the only workable theory of possible deception is A). I recall Hartman clarifying that measurements were taken on the mains side (from Jed's post). I am not too familiar with circuitry. I assume that either (1) the measurement equipment (including the laptop) will need some kind of single-phase conversion in order to work off of the same mains, or (2) they will have to be routed to a separate source (in the case where the mains side has been tampered with). Assuming (1) for the moment, how easy or hard would it be to filter out hidden DC or AC when constructing the single phase conversion in order to protect the measurement equipment? Would you need a heavy transformer? Eric
[Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
Seems to me that if active cooling control is used as the only control input, thus satisfying the unplug it! sceptics (and I'm one of them), then it only has a chance of working if there is good thermal contact and good thermal conductivity and substantial enough heat capacity in the active cooling implementation. I don't know why this is supposed to be hard. Gaming PC's of the high-end variety use this all the time. Prompt temperature feedback to the cooling pump is all that's needed, plus a simple PID controller. This is very well-known technology. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:44 PM Subject: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? My model demonstrates that constant temperature operation of the ECAT is not going to work under normal conditions. The relatively high value of COP when temperature control is used depends upon operation in a positive feedback region. This can be thought of as related to the question that always arises about why the device does not supply its own drive and therefore run continuously in SSM. Once the loop gain becomes greater than 1, the device will tend to move in the direction that it is currently heading. This allows it to heat up to a relatively larger temperature than that due to the drive alone. When rising in temperature, the device begins to put out additional heat, more with time. The trick is to turn the process around at a good point before it goes too far. The best turn around temperature is well defined and shows up as a tendency for the device to continue putting out power at a constant rate with time. Unfortunately, this exact point would be impossible to achieve while maintaining control. It is a balance between how long you want the temperature to remain nearly constant and the risk of loosing control. Rossi chose a relatively safe turn around temperature for the last test which caused the COP to drop below his desired value of 6. I suspect he chose this because a COP of 3 well demonstrates that the process is real and also has enough margin to keep the device safe from melt down. I think I would have done the same under the same constraints. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
Correction: the controller in its simplest form can be bang-bang like a thermostat and still have a good shot at working. Next up in complexity is modulated bang-bang, aka PWM. After that, it's P, then PI, then PID in order of increasing complexity. Last of all would be full-on state space regulation, which is total overkill here. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:52 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Seems to me that if active cooling control is used as the only control input, thus satisfying the unplug it! sceptics (and I'm one of them), then it only has a chance of working if there is good thermal contact and good thermal conductivity and substantial enough heat capacity in the active cooling implementation. I don't know why this is supposed to be hard. Gaming PC's of the high-end variety use this all the time. Prompt temperature feedback to the cooling pump is all that's needed, plus a simple PID controller. This is very well-known technology. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:44 PM Subject: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? My model demonstrates that constant temperature operation of the ECAT is not going to work under normal conditions. The relatively high value of COP when temperature control is used depends upon operation in a positive feedback region. This can be thought of as related to the question that always arises about why the device does not supply its own drive and therefore run continuously in SSM. Once the loop gain becomes greater than 1, the device will tend to move in the direction that it is currently heading. This allows it to heat up to a relatively larger temperature than that due to the drive alone. When rising in temperature, the device begins to put out additional heat, more with time. The trick is to turn the process around at a good point before it goes too far. The best turn around temperature is well defined and shows up as a tendency for the device to continue putting out power at a constant rate with time. Unfortunately, this exact point would be impossible to achieve while maintaining control. It is a balance between how long you want the temperature to remain nearly constant and the risk of loosing control. Rossi chose a relatively safe turn around temperature for the last test which caused the COP to drop below his desired value of 6. I suspect he chose this because a COP of 3 well demonstrates that the process is real and also has enough margin to keep the device safe from melt down. I think I would have done the same under the same constraints. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
See my follow-up on this. There's always going to be a tracking error, no matter how sophisticated the regulation algorithm. I think the prime objective here is not to have absolutely constant temperature per se; rather, it's to guarantee that thermal runaway cannot occur. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? How many of these controllers use positve thermal feedback to keep the sink at a constant temperature? Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 7:52 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Seems to me that if active cooling control is used as the only control input, thus satisfying the unplug it! sceptics (and I'm one of them), then it only has a chance of working if there is good thermal contact and good thermal conductivity and substantial enough heat capacity in the active cooling implementation. I don't know why this is supposed to be hard. Gaming PC's of the high-end variety use this all the time. Prompt temperature feedback to the cooling pump is all that's needed, plus a simple PID controller. This is very well-known technology. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:44 PM Subject: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? My model demonstrates that constant temperature operation of the ECAT is not going to work under normal conditions. The relatively high value of COP when temperature control is used depends upon operation in a positive feedback region. This can be thought of as related to the question that always arises about why the device does not supply its own drive and therefore run continuously in SSM. Once the loop gain becomes greater than 1, the device will tend to move in the direction that it is currently heading. This allows it to heat up to a relatively larger temperature than that due to the drive alone. When rising in temperature, the device begins to put out additional heat, more with time. The trick is to turn the process around at a good point before it goes too far. The best turn around temperature is well defined and shows up as a tendency for the device to continue putting out power at a constant rate with time. Unfortunately, this exact point would be impossible to achieve while maintaining control. It is a balance between how long you want the temperature to remain nearly constant and the risk of loosing control. Rossi chose a relatively safe turn around temperature for the last test which caused the COP to drop below his desired value of 6. I suspect he chose this because a COP of 3 well demonstrates that the process is real and also has enough margin to keep the device safe from melt down. I think I would have done the same under the same constraints. Dave
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I continue to be worried about the fact that the input and output power are measured equal in the report in the pulse ON state. One would have thought that, if the device truly is generating its own energy, that this should not be the case. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Eric, The idea here is that the extras (DC and/or RF) are undetectable to the meter using clamp ammeters (we know this for a fact), and when this extra gets passed on to the control box, it's able to pass them on to the device, perhaps with some customisation. The device, being chiefly ohmic, will dissipate DC and will likely also dissipate RF. So no customisation by the control box of the extras is in principle necessary - the power simply gets passed along to the device, which consumes it and generates heat as a result. Now, as I've described, the shenanigans chiefly occur during the pulse OFF state, so there will have to be some customisation in the control box. The idea here is to dissipate the extras during pulse ON and pass them along during pulse OFF. The mains doesn't know about the pulse schedule, so cannot itself switch the extras in or out (actually, a Byzantine arrangement could be made to work in this way, but I'm not going that far out). Since no type of electronics control circuitry could survive colocated with the device, the implication is that the control box has to dissipate significant power continuously. That raises a question about the control box temperature. Since it's a sealed unit, and we're talking a couple hundred watts at least, it would have to get bloody hot. There's another data point we don't have. But you'd think they would have mentioned it. I'm talking myself out of this, aren't I? :) Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: B) seems unlikely because it would require batteries, and Hartman states that it was much lighter than that. Battery technology does not exist that could be that light, and/or occupy so little volume, and make up that total energy difference as measured over 100+ hours. Therefore, it seems that the only workable theory of possible deception is A). I recall Hartman clarifying that measurements were taken on the mains side (from Jed's post). I am not too familiar with circuitry. I assume that either (1) the measurement equipment (including the laptop) will need some kind of single-phase conversion in order to work off of the same mains, or (2) they will have to be routed to a separate source (in the case where the mains side has been tampered with). Assuming (1) for the moment, how easy or hard would it be to filter out hidden DC or AC when constructing the single phase conversion in order to protect the measurement equipment? Would you need a heavy transformer? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
Of course I'm talking exclusively about a negative feedback system!! The positive feedback purportedly occurs internally to the device itself. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? No, there is a large difference between a negative feedback system and a positive feedback system. Tell us how to make your temperature controller hold a constant temperature with positive feedback and a loop gain of greater than 1. If you do, you might find that it matches my model. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? See my follow-up on this. There's always going to be a tracking error, no matter how sophisticated the regulation algorithm. I think the prime objective here is not to have absolutely constant temperature per se; rather, it's to guarantee that thermal runaway cannot occur. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? How many of these controllers use positve thermal feedback to keep the sink at a constant temperature? Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 7:52 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Seems to me that if active cooling control is used as the only control input, thus satisfying the unplug it! sceptics (and I'm one of them), then it only has a chance of working if there is good thermal contact and good thermal conductivity and substantial enough heat capacity in the active cooling implementation. I don't know why this is supposed to be hard. Gaming PC's of the high-end variety use this all the time. Prompt temperature feedback to the cooling pump is all that's needed, plus a simple PID controller. This is very well-known technology. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:44 PM Subject: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? My model demonstrates that constant temperature operation of the ECAT is not going to work under normal conditions. The relatively high value of COP when temperature control is used depends upon operation in a positive feedback region. This can be thought of as related to the question that always arises about why the device does not supply its own drive and therefore run continuously in SSM. Once the loop gain becomes greater than 1, the device will tend to move in the direction that it is currently heading. This allows it to heat up to a relatively larger temperature than that due to the drive alone. When rising in temperature, the device begins to put out additional heat, more with time. The trick is to turn the process around at a good point before it goes too far. The best turn around temperature is well defined and shows up as a tendency for the device to continue putting out power at a constant rate with time. Unfortunately, this exact point would be impossible to achieve while maintaining control. It is a balance between how long you want the temperature to remain nearly constant and the risk of loosing control. Rossi chose a relatively safe turn around temperature for the last test which caused the COP to drop below his desired value of 6. I suspect he chose this because a COP of 3 well demonstrates that the process is real and also has enough margin to keep the device safe from melt down. I think I would have done the same under the same constraints. Dave
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
p22. Emitted PowerE-Cat HT2 = (741.3 + 17 + 58) [W] = (816.3± 2%) [W] = (816±16) [W] (24) Instantaneous Power ConsumptionE-Cat HT2 = (920 - 110) [W ]= 810 [W] (25) - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Where does this statement appear? I suspect that you are misreading. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I continue to be worried about the fact that the input and output power are measured equal in the report in the pulse ON state. One would have thought that, if the device truly is generating its own energy, that this should not be the case. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Eric, The idea here is that the extras (DC and/or RF) are undetectable to the meter using clamp ammeters (we know this for a fact), and when this extra gets passed on to the control box, it's able to pass them on to the device, perhaps with some customisation. The device, being chiefly ohmic, will dissipate DC and will likely also dissipate RF. So no customisation by the control box of the extras is in principle necessary - the power simply gets passed along to the device, which consumes it and generates heat as a result. Now, as I've described, the shenanigans chiefly occur during the pulse OFF state, so there will have to be some customisation in the control box. The idea here is to dissipate the extras during pulse ON and pass them along during pulse OFF. The mains doesn't know about the pulse schedule, so cannot itself switch the extras in or out (actually, a Byzantine arrangement could be made to work in this way, but I'm not going that far out). Since no type of electronics control circuitry could survive colocated with the device, the implication is that the control box has to dissipate significant power continuously. That raises a question about the control box temperature. Since it's a sealed unit, and we're talking a couple hundred watts at least, it would have to get bloody hot. There's another data point we don't have. But you'd think they would have mentioned it. I'm talking myself out of this, aren't I? :) Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: B) seems unlikely because it would require batteries, and Hartman states that it was much lighter than that. Battery technology does not exist that could be that light, and/or occupy so little volume, and make up that total energy difference as measured over 100+ hours. Therefore, it seems that the only workable theory of possible deception is A). I recall Hartman clarifying that measurements were taken on the mains side (from Jed's post). I am not too familiar with circuitry. I assume that either (1) the measurement equipment (including the laptop) will need some kind of single-phase conversion in order to work off of the same mains, or (2) they will have to be routed to a separate source (in the case where the mains side has been tampered with). Assuming (1) for the moment, how easy or hard would it be to filter out hidden DC or AC when constructing the single phase conversion in order to protect the measurement equipment? Would you need a heavy transformer? Eric
Re: [Vo]:The dog that didn't bark. -- Clue 2
I doubt that you can use a thermocouple as an active heating device. It's a clever idea, though. Andrew - Original Message - From: leaking pen To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dog that didn't bark. -- Clue 2 or were the heat readings from all the other methods of measurement being used enough to guide management? On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Gee .. nobody else wants to play? The missing item is the thermocouple in the eCat, and the control wires leading back to the controller. (Levi et al saw the heating resistors and the connecting wires, though they didn't post pictures. You can see them in the Penon report) So ... is Rossi just blindly turning the heaters on 35%, off 65% ... ... or is his controller telepathically reading the state of the system? ... or ...
Re: [Vo]:The dog that didn't bark. -- Clue 2
Yes, that's my take also. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dog that didn't bark. -- Clue 2 I would bet he is blindly turning them on and off in this test. Recall that the unit was set up and running when the testers arrived. Also, the COP is low enough to allow plenty of margin for stability. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dog that didn't bark. -- Clue 2 Gee .. nobody else wants to play? The missing item is the thermocouple in the eCat, and the control wires leading back to the controller. (Levi et al saw the heating resistors and the connecting wires, though they didn't post pictures. You can see them in the Penon report) So ... is Rossi just blindly turning the heaters on 35%, off 65% ... ... or is his controller telepathically reading the state of the system? ... or ...
[Vo]: About the March test
server seems stuck. resending - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test p22. Emitted PowerE-Cat HT2 = (741.3 + 17 + 58) [W] = (816.3± 2%) [W] = (816±16) [W] (24) Instantaneous Power ConsumptionE-Cat HT2 = (920 - 110) [W ]= 810 [W] (25) - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Where does this statement appear? I suspect that you are misreading. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I continue to be worried about the fact that the input and output power are measured equal in the report in the pulse ON state. One would have thought that, if the device truly is generating its own energy, that this should not be the case. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Eric, The idea here is that the extras (DC and/or RF) are undetectable to the meter using clamp ammeters (we know this for a fact), and when this extra gets passed on to the control box, it's able to pass them on to the device, perhaps with some customisation. The device, being chiefly ohmic, will dissipate DC and will likely also dissipate RF. So no customisation by the control box of the extras is in principle necessary - the power simply gets passed along to the device, which consumes it and generates heat as a result. Now, as I've described, the shenanigans chiefly occur during the pulse OFF state, so there will have to be some customisation in the control box. The idea here is to dissipate the extras during pulse ON and pass them along during pulse OFF. The mains doesn't know about the pulse schedule, so cannot itself switch the extras in or out (actually, a Byzantine arrangement could be made to work in this way, but I'm not going that far out). Since no type of electronics control circuitry could survive colocated with the device, the implication is that the control box has to dissipate significant power continuously. That raises a question about the control box temperature. Since it's a sealed unit, and we're talking a couple hundred watts at least, it would have to get bloody hot. There's another data point we don't have. But you'd think they would have mentioned it. I'm talking myself out of this, aren't I? :) Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: B) seems unlikely because it would require batteries, and Hartman states that it was much lighter than that. Battery technology does not exist that could be that light, and/or occupy so little volume, and make up that total energy difference as measured over 100+ hours. Therefore, it seems that the only workable theory of possible deception is A). I recall Hartman clarifying that measurements were taken on the mains side (from Jed's post). I am not too familiar with circuitry. I assume that either (1) the measurement equipment (including the laptop) will need some kind of single-phase conversion in order to work off of the same mains, or (2) they will have to be routed to a separate source (in the case where the mains side has been tampered with). Assuming (1) for the moment, how easy or hard would it be to filter out hidden DC or AC when constructing the single phase conversion in order to protect the measurement equipment? Would you need a heavy transformer? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
We are totally at cross-purposes here; if we were in the same room, this crap wouldn't happen. So here's the deal. I'm considering the scenario whereby we operate the heating system to bring the device just past the stable temperature; further heating results in thermal runaway (at least, that's what's claimed for Rossi's device - it actually melted down due to the application of constant heating, but whatever). To keep the thing stable when it wants to apply positive feedback to itself, we need to apply negative feedback. And hence I began to discuss and describe characteristics desirable of an active cooling system. You dig? - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? But, we are talking about the ECAT. It operates by using positive feedback to get high gain. You are the one that mentioned a negative feedback system that achieves the same thing. That is not comparable. Stable operation of negative feedback systems is trivial. Think of taking a tunnel diode and keeping it within the negative resistance region without heavy resistive loading. The problem is similar to that which Rossi faces. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Of course I'm talking exclusively about a negative feedback system!! The positive feedback purportedly occurs internally to the device itself. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? No, there is a large difference between a negative feedback system and a positive feedback system. Tell us how to make your temperature controller hold a constant temperature with positive feedback and a loop gain of greater than 1. If you do, you might find that it matches my model. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? See my follow-up on this. There's always going to be a tracking error, no matter how sophisticated the regulation algorithm. I think the prime objective here is not to have absolutely constant temperature per se; rather, it's to guarantee that thermal runaway cannot occur. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? How many of these controllers use positve thermal feedback to keep the sink at a constant temperature? Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 7:52 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? Seems to me that if active cooling control is used as the only control input, thus satisfying the unplug it! sceptics (and I'm one of them), then it only has a chance of working if there is good thermal contact and good thermal conductivity and substantial enough heat capacity in the active cooling implementation. I don't know why this is supposed to be hard. Gaming PC's of the high-end variety use this all the time. Prompt temperature feedback to the cooling pump is all that's needed, plus a simple PID controller. This is very well-known technology. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:44 PM Subject: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? My model demonstrates that constant temperature operation of the ECAT is not going to work under normal conditions. The relatively high value of COP when temperature control is used depends upon operation in a positive feedback region. This can be thought of as related to the question that always arises about why the device does not supply its own drive and therefore run continuously in SSM. Once the loop gain becomes greater than 1, the device will tend to move in the direction that it is currently heading. This allows it to heat up to a relatively larger temperature than that due to the drive alone. When rising in temperature, the device begins to put out additional heat, more with time. The trick is to turn the process around at a good point before it goes too far. The best turn around temperature is well defined and shows up as a tendency for the device to continue putting out power at a constant rate with time. Unfortunately, this exact point would be impossible
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
You have stopped processing information and now are talking about bullfrogs. When you return from bullfrog land, we might be able to resume a serious dialogue. Until then, have a hoppingly great time. - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I read that section and found that this is not a problem. The input is applied for 1/3 of the time while the average output is roughly equal to that value. The calculation shows that the COP is therefore approximately 3. This is what they say in the report. The maximum instantaneous peak power output should be greater than the peak input. This is consistent. Operation at low temperatures and therefore COP are limited. I prefer to see them run her at full warp, but control issues make this difficult for long duration tests. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test p22. Emitted Power E-Cat HT2 = (741.3 + 17 + 58) [W] = (816.3± 2%) [W] = (816±16) [W] (24) Instantaneous Power Consumption E-Cat HT2 = (920 110) [W ]= 810 [W] (25) - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Where does this statement appear? I suspect that you are misreading. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I continue to be worried about the fact that the input and output power are measured equal in the report in the pulse ON state. One would have thought that, if the device truly is generating its own energy, that this should not be the case. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Eric, The idea here is that the extras (DC and/or RF) are undetectable to the meter using clamp ammeters (we know this for a fact), and when this extra gets passed on to the control box, it's able to pass them on to the device, perhaps with some customisation. The device, being chiefly ohmic, will dissipate DC and will likely also dissipate RF. So no customisation by the control box of the extras is in principle necessary - the power simply gets passed along to the device, which consumes it and generates heat as a result. Now, as I've described, the shenanigans chiefly occur during the pulse OFF state, so there will have to be some customisation in the control box. The idea here is to dissipate the extras during pulse ON and pass them along during pulse OFF. The mains doesn't know about the pulse schedule, so cannot itself switch the extras in or out (actually, a Byzantine arrangement could be made to work in this way, but I'm not going that far out). Since no type of electronics control circuitry could survive colocated with the device, the implication is that the control box has to dissipate significant power continuously. That raises a question about the control box temperature. Since it's a sealed unit, and we're talking a couple hundred watts at least, it would have to get bloody hot. There's another data point we don't have. But you'd think they would have mentioned it. I'm talking myself out of this, aren't I? :) Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: B) seems unlikely because it would require batteries, and Hartman states that it was much lighter than that. Battery technology does not exist that could be that light, and/or occupy so little volume, and make up that total energy difference as measured over 100+ hours. Therefore, it seems that the only workable theory of possible deception is A). I recall Hartman clarifying that measurements were taken on the mains side (from Jed's post). I am not too familiar with circuitry. I assume that either (1) the measurement equipment (including the laptop) will need some kind of single-phase conversion in order to work off of the same mains, or (2) they will have to be routed to a separate source (in the case where the mains side has been tampered with). Assuming (1) for the moment, how easy or hard would it be to filter out hidden DC or AC when constructing the single phase conversion in order to protect the measurement equipment? Would you need a heavy transformer? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT?
One thing at a time Harry; one thing at a time. - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? You are neglecting the I-can't-see-inside sceptics. Harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Seems to me that if active cooling control is used as the only control input, thus satisfying the unplug it! sceptics (and I'm one of them), then it only has a chance of working if there is good thermal contact and good thermal conductivity and substantial enough heat capacity in the active cooling implementation. I don't know why this is supposed to be hard. Gaming PC's of the high-end variety use this all the time. Prompt temperature feedback to the cooling pump is all that's needed, plus a simple PID controller. This is very well-known technology.
