RE: [Vo]:Caveats to using SPICE for thermal analysis

[Robert Ellefson]

>From: Alan Fletcher 
>Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 12:27 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Caveats to using SPICE for thermal analysis
>
>David has been concentrating on the control aspects, I have been doing RC 
>modelling similar to that described in your very >helpful paper.
>
>I did a detailed mesh model of a heat exchanger ... but gave it up because it 
>was too sensitive to the parameter for heat >transfer from water to metal. 
>
>See http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_c.php   and 
>http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_spice.php
>
>I'm now working on an RC model of the eCat .. progressing from a lumped model 
>to a ladder model.

Wow, I'm pretty impressed Alan, I don't think I've ever seen that a thermal 
SPICE model of such complexity.   Most of the significant thermal analysis work 
I've been involved with has been done by MEs using dedicated FEA applications, 
and the SPICE modeling was typically used only by EEs for heat-sink selections 
and other random little tasks.  I think about two or three dozen elements is 
the most I've seen actually used for thermal modeling before.  

Have you looked around at any open-source FEA tools that might be used for your 
project?   If there are any decent ones, I suspect they'd lighten your workload 
considerably as compared SPICE, but I'm not familiar with what's actually 
available, so this is just speculation.

Anyhow, best of luck with your efforts, and thanks for sharing.

-Robert

Re: [Vo]:OT: scrabble challenge

[Alain Sepeda]

you forget the L...

off topic: anyway It remind me a remarks about innovation:

Fleischmann is born in Czechoslovakia, moved to Netherlands, then England,
then worked as electrologist in US, when having trouble because of his
discoveries,
he get funded by Japanese corp to work in France...

what a scenario!

who is Nouriel Roubini ?
Who is Nassim Nicholas Taleb ?

maybe you will notice a pattern (Norbert Alter claim it is a requirement
for innovation: being alien, having faced the fact that your world is not
the only one to be true).


2013/6/3 Craig Brown 

> FRENCH
>
>   Original Message 
> Subject: [Vo]:OT: scrabble challenge
> From: Harry Veeder 
> Date: Mon, June 03, 2013 3:14 pm
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> With the seven letters LENR CF H make a word.
>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR?

[Alain Sepeda]

Last year the same question was
raised.
My first longitudinal hair cutter opinion was to use LENR (beside being
precise and popular, that term is easy to search in google).
however after discussing with businessmen, they convince me that for my mum
"cold fusion" was the best. I presented my position as such:

"Here is my position on the naming.
Some people, like me initially wanted a precise, scientific, less connoted
term like LENR. Today here is my position.

Some corporate serial innovator said me that
*Cold Fusion*
is the best name.

Today it is satanic because of mainstream denial, but soon people won’t
care…

but unlike LENR, CANR, LANR, HENI… it is not NUCLEAR  …

it is COLD, thus safe, not dangerous

it is FUSION, so it is sexy, inclusive

the only good name might be the Quantum Reactor…
it is a bit geek … not for my mum. :mrgreen:
For me like for many geek, quantum is sexy :shock: , and reactor is macho
:shock: … but for mum, it is doubtful and dangerous black magic :twisted: …

so really COLD FUSION is the best name…
the brand is established, the 2 words have good connotation (safe, sexy,
inclusive 8-) ), and bad reputation will disappear with a feeling of
revenge on the men in power :twisted: …

like raising the finger in front of the government. a safe sexy rebel
reactor  8-) :twisted: …
COOL! :mrgreen:"



2013/6/3 Jed Rothwell 

> Until everyone agrees on what cold fusion is, there is no point to
> inventing a new name for it.
>
> It does not matter in any case, because the name is not the thing. Many
> words are technically inaccurate, obsolete or misleading. A "solid-state
> disk" (SSD) is not disk-shaped, and a round shape tells you nothing about
> the function of an SSD. A computer folder does not fold.
>
> Words such as "folder" and folder icons on the computer screen are
> skeuomorphs. When my daughter was around 10 she came to my office and saw a
> real manilla folder for the first time, and said, "so *that's* what it
> shows on the computer screen."
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Affordable geiger counter modules

[Teslaalset]

On the search for an affordable geigercounter i came across the following
initiative:
http://www.radiation-watch.org/p/english.html
They sell a variaty of very affordable radiation kits that also sell via a
European site:
http://www.radiation-watch.co.uk 
I went for the type 5.

Re: [Vo]:Caveats to using SPICE for thermal analysis

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Robert Ellefson" 
> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 12:05:18 AM
> >I did a detailed mesh model of a heat exchanger ... but gave it up
> >because it was too sensitive to the parameter for heat >transfer
> >from water to metal.
> >
> >See http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_c.php   and
> >http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_spice.php
> >
> >I'm now working on an RC model of the eCat .. progressing from a
> >lumped model to a ladder model.
> 
> Wow, I'm pretty impressed Alan, I don't think I've ever seen that a
> thermal SPICE model of such complexity.   Most of the significant
> thermal analysis work I've been involved with has been done by MEs
> using dedicated FEA applications, and the SPICE modeling was
> typically used only by EEs for heat-sink selections and other random
> little tasks.  I think about two or three dozen elements is the most
> I've seen actually used for thermal modeling before.
> 
> Have you looked around at any open-source FEA tools that might be
> used for your project?   If there are any decent ones, I suspect
> they'd lighten your workload considerably as compared SPICE, but I'm
> not familiar with what's actually available, so this is just
> speculation.
> 
> Anyhow, best of luck with your efforts, and thanks for sharing.

I installed Elmer, but couldn't get it to work. (My ignorance, I think).

The hotcat is easier, because it's radially symmetric -- just a cylinder in a 
cylinder in a ...
I'll go as far as I can with Spice (which works) and then give Elmer another 
try.

Re: [Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR?

[Jack Cole]

Good points Alain.  I suppose it may all become a mute point as more
positive results roll in, and if there is a running reactor that the public
can visit.


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> Last year the same question was 
> raised.
> My first longitudinal hair cutter opinion was to use LENR (beside being
> precise and popular, that term is easy to search in google).
> however after discussing with businessmen, they convince me that for my
> mum "cold fusion" was the best. I presented my position as such:
>
> "Here is my position on the naming.
> Some people, like me initially wanted a precise, scientific, less connoted
> term like LENR. Today here is my position.
>
> Some corporate serial innovator said me that
> *Cold Fusion*
> is the best name.
>
> Today it is satanic because of mainstream denial, but soon people won’t
> care…
>
> but unlike LENR, CANR, LANR, HENI… it is not NUCLEAR  …
>
> it is COLD, thus safe, not dangerous
>
> it is FUSION, so it is sexy, inclusive
>
> the only good name might be the Quantum Reactor…
> it is a bit geek … not for my mum. :mrgreen:
> For me like for many geek, quantum is sexy :shock: , and reactor is macho
> :shock: … but for mum, it is doubtful and dangerous black magic :twisted: …
>
> so really COLD FUSION is the best name…
> the brand is established, the 2 words have good connotation (safe, sexy,
> inclusive 8-) ), and bad reputation will disappear with a feeling of
> revenge on the men in power :twisted: …
>
> like raising the finger in front of the government. a safe sexy rebel
> reactor  8-) :twisted: …
> COOL! :mrgreen:"
>
>
>
> 2013/6/3 Jed Rothwell 
>
>> Until everyone agrees on what cold fusion is, there is no point to
>> inventing a new name for it.
>>
>> It does not matter in any case, because the name is not the thing. Many
>> words are technically inaccurate, obsolete or misleading. A "solid-state
>> disk" (SSD) is not disk-shaped, and a round shape tells you nothing about
>> the function of an SSD. A computer folder does not fold.
>>
>> Words such as "folder" and folder icons on the computer screen are
>> skeuomorphs. When my daughter was around 10 she came to my office and saw a
>> real manilla folder for the first time, and said, "so *that's* what it
>> shows on the computer screen."
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Daniel Rocha]

I wish Abd was here. Would you like to carry this conversation to his nVo?


2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 

> Then let's get back to your original statement:  "That's not good. It
> violates the 2nd law of thermo."   How is that not good?  That's like
> watching a rock hovering in the sky  saying, "that violates the law of
> gravity".  There's nothing good nor bad about it.  It's simply an
> experimental result.
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> I don't understand what you mean...
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>>
 There are theories that avoid  the violation of the 2nd law.

>>> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result,
>>> everything is in good shape.  Why would you say "That's not good"?
>>>
>>> This is an experimental finding, not a theory.
>>>
>>>
>>>


 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 

>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo.
>>
> ***It is an experimental finding.  Like Feynman says, experiment
> trumps theory.
>
>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Kevin O'Malley]

No thanks.  Why don't you just answer the question?  It is pretty
straightforward.


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> I wish Abd was here. Would you like to carry this conversation to his nVo?
>
>
> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 
>
>> Then let's get back to your original statement:  "That's not good. It
>> violates the 2nd law of thermo."   How is that not good?  That's like
>> watching a rock hovering in the sky  saying, "that violates the law of
>> gravity".  There's nothing good nor bad about it.  It's simply an
>> experimental result.
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand what you mean...
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 
>>>


 On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

> There are theories that avoid  the violation of the 2nd law.
>
 ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result,
 everything is in good shape.  Why would you say "That's not good"?

 This is an experimental finding, not a theory.



>
>
> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo.
>>>
>> ***It is an experimental finding.  Like Feynman says, experiment
>> trumps theory.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Daniel Rocha]

You don't need new physics to explain cold fusion. Nor violate any
statistical physics. You just need to look for ignored solution in
the literature.


2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 

> No thanks.  Why don't you just answer the question?  It is pretty
> straightforward.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> I wish Abd was here. Would you like to carry this conversation to his nVo?
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 
>>
>>> Then let's get back to your original statement:  "That's not good. It
>>> violates the 2nd law of thermo."   How is that not good?  That's like
>>> watching a rock hovering in the sky  saying, "that violates the law of
>>> gravity".  There's nothing good nor bad about it.  It's simply an
>>> experimental result.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>>
 I don't understand what you mean...


 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 

>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> There are theories that avoid  the violation of the 2nd law.
>>
> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental
> result, everything is in good shape.  Why would you say "That's not good"?
>
> This is an experimental finding, not a theory.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo.

>>> ***It is an experimental finding.  Like Feynman says, experiment
>>> trumps theory.
>>>
>>>


>>>



>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>
>


 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Kevin O'Malley]

I think I understand now.  In your viewpoint, an actual experimental result
which challenges that stance would be something you'd call "not good".


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> You don't need new physics to explain cold fusion. Nor violate any
> statistical physics. You just need to look for ignored solution in
> the literature.
>
>
> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 
>
>> No thanks.  Why don't you just answer the question?  It is pretty
>> straightforward.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>
>>> I wish Abd was here. Would you like to carry this conversation to his
>>> nVo?
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 
>>>
 Then let's get back to your original statement:  "That's not good. It
 violates the 2nd law of thermo."   How is that not good?  That's like
 watching a rock hovering in the sky  saying, "that violates the law of
 gravity".  There's nothing good nor bad about it.  It's simply an
 experimental result.

 On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

> I don't understand what you mean...
>
>
> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There are theories that avoid  the violation of the 2nd law.
>>>
>> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental
>> result, everything is in good shape.  Why would you say "That's not 
>> good"?
>>
>> This is an experimental finding, not a theory.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 
>>>


 On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha >>> > wrote:

> That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo.
>
 ***It is an experimental finding.  Like Feynman says, experiment
 trumps theory.


>
>

>
>
>


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

RE: [Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR?

[Jones Beene]

Neologisms-R-us.

 

What is the take-away message from any "designer name"? First - it should
point to the most attractive feature, and second it should be fairly unique.
The underlying reaction is almost certainly Quantum Mechanical - as opposed
to thermonuclear. The least we can do is put a "Q" into any new name, since
this connotes both "high tech" and change (e.g. quantum shift). It is almost
impossible to find anything truly unique these days.

 

"Quantum" shows up positively in a lot of products or titles - including a
James Bond movie, so the connotations are favorable. No one has a monopoly
on it, whereas the name "cold fusion" is being usurped by a large software
community. "Reactor" has a negative connotation.

 

Therefore, it seems wise to put "Quantum"  or "Q" into the nomenclature
somewhere but possibly not "reactor" and probably not "cold" since the
HotCat is the cat's pajamas and it ain't cold. 

 

"QF" for quantum fusion has a nice concise ring to it, so long as the fusion
part is understood to be a "conjoining of atoms" and NOT thermonuclear
fusion. However, it is likely that the boondoggle of thermonuclear fusion
ITER and NOVA etc will eventually be looked at by future generations as the
most gigantic waste of resources in human history, so we should probably not
even put the f-word in there at all.

 

What at about QCat  for Quantum Catalysis? 

 

That would give too much credit to Rossi, in the event that his contribution
turns out not to be the major breakthrough which pushed the technology over
the top. But as of now, it does look like AR could be the man of the hour,
so I'm thinking QCat works pending more complete testing protocol and more
openness from AR.

 

BTW the correct spelling of the folder, according to Outlook - is one "l" as
in "manila" and the name comes from a type of hemp, according to Wiki .
strange connections, all around... Hey, don't Bogart that name.

 

 

Jed Rothwell wrote:

Until everyone agrees on what cold fusion is, there is no point to inventing
a new name for it.

 

It does not matter in any case, because the name is not the thing. Many
words are technically inaccurate, obsolete or misleading. A "solid-state
disk" (SSD) is not disk-shaped, and a round shape tells you nothing about
the function of an SSD. A computer folder does not fold.

 

Words such as "folder" and folder icons on the computer screen are
skeuomorphs. When my daughter was around 10 she came to my office and saw a
real manilla folder for the first time, and said, "so that's what it shows 

 

 

From: Jack Cole 

 

Good points Alain.  I suppose it may all become a mute point as more
positive results roll in, and if there is a running reactor that the public
can visit.

 

Alain Sepeda wrote:


Some corporate serial innovator said me that Cold Fusion is the best name.

Today it is satanic because of mainstream denial, but soon people won't
care.

but unlike LENR, CANR, LANR, HENI. it is not NUCLEAR
http://www.lenr-forum.com/images/smilies/redface.png .

it is COLD, thus safe, not dangerous
http://www.lenr-forum.com/images/smilies/smile.png 

it is FUSION, so it is sexy, inclusive
http://www.lenr-forum.com/images/smilies/biggrin.png 

the only good name might be the Quantum Reactor.
it is a bit geek . not for my mum. :mrgreen: 
For me like for many geek, quantum is sexy :shock: , and reactor is macho
:shock: . but for mum, it is doubtful and dangerous black magic :twisted: .

so really COLD FUSION is the best name.
the brand is established, the 2 words have good connotation (safe, sexy,
inclusive 8-) ), and bad reputation will disappear with a feeling of revenge
on the men in power :twisted: .

like raising the finger in front of the government. a safe sexy rebel
reactor  http://www.lenr-forum.com/images/smilies/biggrin.png 8-) :twisted:
.
COOL! :mrgreen:"

 

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Edmund Storms]

I suggest you all read "Quantum Weirdness? It's all in your mind" In  
Scientific American, June 2013, page 47.  According to the author, QM  
has been made complex and increasingly out of contact with reality.   
The success in fitting behavior has been used to justify increasingly  
complex mathematical methods without any additional benefit.


I believe the demand that CF be explained using such treatment is  
another example of the intellectual system run a muck. There is NO  
Quantum mechanical  paradox. This is only in the imagination, not in  
reality.


Ed Storms


On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:37 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


Dear Daniel

The laws of our classical reality are but and illusion that fails us  
when we try to understanding the quantum world around us.


This Quantum mechanical  paradox is the biggest problem that LENR  
faces. It is just too weird.



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Daniel Rocha   
wrote:

I don't understand what you mean...


2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 


On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha   
wrote:

There are theories that avoid  the violation of the 2nd law.
***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental  
result, everything is in good shape.  Why would you say "That's not  
good"?


This is an experimental finding, not a theory.




2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 


On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha   
wrote:

That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo.
***It is an experimental finding.  Like Feynman says, experiment  
trumps theory.










--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com




--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR?

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:

>
> I agree that it doesn't matter to us who have looked into the research,
> but do you think it would make a difference with the broader population of
> scientists, general public, and the patent office?
>

No, that is a forlorn hope. That is the reason people invent euphemisms.
They want to escape some embarrassing or unfortunate association with the
word. But as soon as the euphemism becomes widely used, the association
attaches to it and you are back where you started. You have to invent
another  euphemism. That is why we have so many words for things like
toilets, mental retardation, or crippled, and why the politically correct
word for crippled keeps changing, sometimes to stupid terms such as
"differently abled."

Another thing to remember is that no one is in charge of language. No one
decides what words will become popular, and what words will fade away. In a
narrow technical discipline a committee can decide what to call things such
as units of measure (Watt, Joule, Tesla). But for something that will have
an impact as large as cold fusion, no one is charge.

Many widely used words linger on long after the literal meaning has become
obsolete. We still talk of ships "sailing." We still say "roll the tape"
meaning show a video, even though nothing rolls and there is no tape.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Daniel Rocha]

No, for me an actual explanation that challenges that stance I'd call 'not
good'.


2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 

>  In your viewpoint, an actual experimental result which challenges that
> stance would be something you'd call "not good".
>

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Jed Rothwell]

O'Malley  wrote:

>
> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result,
> everything is in good shape.  Why would you say "That's not good"?
>
> This is an experimental finding, not a theory.
>

It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right and
therefore this experimental result is probably wrong. Until it is widely
replicated most people will assume it is wrong. The problem there is that
people seldom try to replicate results which appear to be wrong on the face
of it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR?

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>   Neologisms-R-us…* *
>
> What is the take-away message from any “designer name”? First - it should
> point to the most attractive feature, and second it should be fairly
> unique.
>
>
> Or maybe it should simply be kewl:

http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion-family.html

Re: [Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR?

[Alain Sepeda]

even if commercially Cold fusion seems the best (brand is known, with good
layman image assumed it works), the fact that it sahre the name with adobe
technology, and with many other sentense like jaz fusion or cold drink is a
problem for tech-watcher like me...

LENR is not shared by any other concept... #lenr catch only cold fusion
energy, and so on but is is absolutely geeky reason.


2013/6/3 Terry Blanton 

>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>   Neologisms-R-us…* *
>>
>> What is the take-away message from any “designer name”? First - it should
>> point to the most attractive feature, and second it should be fairly
>> unique.
>>
>>
>> Or maybe it should simply be kewl:
>
> http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion-family.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Kevin O'Malley]

But upthread you have already called this actual experimental result "not
good".


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> No, for me an actual explanation that challenges that stance I'd call 'not
> good'.
>
>
> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley 
>
>>  In your viewpoint, an actual experimental result which challenges that
>> stance would be something you'd call "not good".
>>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> O'Malley  wrote:
>
>>
>>  ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result,
>> everything is in good shape.  Why would you say "That's not good"?
>>
>> This is an experimental finding, not a theory.
>>
>
> It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right and
> therefore this experimental result is probably wrong.
>
***Sounds a lot like the entire field of LENR.





> Until it is widely replicated most people will assume it is wrong.
>
***Let me see -- LENR, 14,700 replications.  Most people still assume it's
wrong.  There is the distinct possibility that this BEC experiment could be
widely replicated and most people will assume it is wrong.




> The problem there is that people seldom try to replicate results which
> appear to be wrong on the face of it.
>
***What we have here is an experimental piece of the puzzle that shows BECs
absorb energy and could account for the 2nd miracle of missing gammas in
LENR.  Y E Kim's theory has been given yet another leg up.  First, it was
high temperature BECs forming.  Second, it is that BECs absorb energy.
BECs do not "disobey" the 2nd law of thermodynamics any more than plasmas
do.


>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[James Bowery]

I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with some
background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate 19th
century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would cost
"a couple hundred bucks maybe...".  Obviously if this is true then the
$20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would
have been more than adequate.  Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then
it is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to
discounting the report:

Why bother issuing such a report unless you were trying to mind-f*ck
everyone?

Of course, I can come up with any of a variety of *plausible* explanations
for why this "couple hundred bucks" estimate may be way off but then I
haven't actually conducted calorimetry on CF runs.

So the question is "Did this skeptic get emotional because his estimate is
correct or did he come up with his estimate because he was an emotional
pseudo-skeptic?"

Re: [Vo]:OT: scrabble challenge

[Harry Veeder]

A sign of something to come or a sign of something that was missed !?
;-)
Harry


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Craig Brown  wrote:

> FRENCH
>
>   Original Message 
> Subject: [Vo]:OT: scrabble challenge
> From: Harry Veeder 
> Date: Mon, June 03, 2013 3:14 pm
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> With the seven letters LENR CF H make a word.
>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A Language Upgrade Needed for LENR?

[Harry Veeder]

frigorific!

Harry


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> Good points Alain.  I suppose it may all become a mute point as more
> positive results roll in, and if there is a running reactor that the public
> can visit.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
>> Last year the same question was 
>> raised.
>> My first longitudinal hair cutter opinion was to use LENR (beside being
>> precise and popular, that term is easy to search in google).
>> however after discussing with businessmen, they convince me that for my
>> mum "cold fusion" was the best. I presented my position as such:
>>
>> "Here is my position on the naming.
>> Some people, like me initially wanted a precise, scientific, less
>> connoted term like LENR. Today here is my position.
>>
>> Some corporate serial innovator said me that
>> *Cold Fusion*
>> is the best name.
>>
>> Today it is satanic because of mainstream denial, but soon people won’t
>> care…
>>
>> but unlike LENR, CANR, LANR, HENI… it is not NUCLEAR  …
>>
>> it is COLD, thus safe, not dangerous
>>
>> it is FUSION, so it is sexy, inclusive
>>
>> the only good name might be the Quantum Reactor…
>> it is a bit geek … not for my mum. :mrgreen:
>> For me like for many geek, quantum is sexy :shock: , and reactor is macho
>> :shock: … but for mum, it is doubtful and dangerous black magic :twisted: …
>>
>> so really COLD FUSION is the best name…
>> the brand is established, the 2 words have good connotation (safe, sexy,
>> inclusive 8-) ), and bad reputation will disappear with a feeling of
>> revenge on the men in power :twisted: …
>>
>> like raising the finger in front of the government. a safe sexy rebel
>> reactor  8-) :twisted: …
>> COOL! :mrgreen:"
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/3 Jed Rothwell 
>>
>>> Until everyone agrees on what cold fusion is, there is no point to
>>> inventing a new name for it.
>>>
>>> It does not matter in any case, because the name is not the thing. Many
>>> words are technically inaccurate, obsolete or misleading. A "solid-state
>>> disk" (SSD) is not disk-shaped, and a round shape tells you nothing about
>>> the function of an SSD. A computer folder does not fold.
>>>
>>> Words such as "folder" and folder icons on the computer screen are
>>> skeuomorphs. When my daughter was around 10 she came to my office and saw a
>>> real manilla folder for the first time, and said, "so *that's* what it
>>> shows on the computer screen."
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:OT: scrabble challenge

[Brad Lowe]

French and Flench  are the
longest valid scrabble words.

But I missed the point...
- Brad

On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> With the seven letters LENR CF H make a word.
>
> Harry
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Axil Axil]

 I was going to write this post, but you beat me to it. Your post is more
elegant and persuasive than mine would have been.


This common flaw in the reason and logic that most people use, this 2nd law
of thermodynamics hangup, is going to make the experimental revelation
showing BEC activity in LENR too hard for people to take. They just won’t
believe their lying eyes.


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> O'Malley  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>  ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental
>>> result, everything is in good shape.  Why would you say "That's not good"?
>>>
>>> This is an experimental finding, not a theory.
>>>
>>
>> It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right and
>> therefore this experimental result is probably wrong.
>>
> ***Sounds a lot like the entire field of LENR.
>
>
>
>
>
>>  Until it is widely replicated most people will assume it is wrong.
>>
> ***Let me see -- LENR, 14,700 replications.  Most people still assume it's
> wrong.  There is the distinct possibility that this BEC experiment could be
> widely replicated and most people will assume it is wrong.
>
>
>
>
>> The problem there is that people seldom try to replicate results which
>> appear to be wrong on the face of it.
>>
> ***What we have here is an experimental piece of the puzzle that shows
> BECs absorb energy and could account for the 2nd miracle of missing gammas
> in LENR.  Y E Kim's theory has been given yet another leg up.  First, it
> was high temperature BECs forming.  Second, it is that BECs absorb energy.
> BECs do not "disobey" the 2nd law of thermodynamics any more than plasmas
> do.
>
>
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Axil Axil]

>From the get go, when you come to think in more simple terms, isn’t seeing
a glowing pipe pumping out six time more energy than is going in a de facto
violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?




On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> I was going to write this post, but you beat me to it. Your post is more
> elegant and persuasive than mine would have been.
>
>
> This common flaw in the reason and logic that most people use, this 2nd
> law of thermodynamics hangup, is going to make the experimental revelation
> showing BEC activity in LENR too hard for people to take. They just won’t
> believe their lying eyes.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>> O'Malley  wrote:
>>>

  ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental
 result, everything is in good shape.  Why would you say "That's not good"?

 This is an experimental finding, not a theory.

>>>
>>> It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right and
>>> therefore this experimental result is probably wrong.
>>>
>> ***Sounds a lot like the entire field of LENR.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>  Until it is widely replicated most people will assume it is wrong.
>>>
>> ***Let me see -- LENR, 14,700 replications.  Most people still assume
>> it's wrong.  There is the distinct possibility that this BEC experiment
>> could be widely replicated and most people will assume it is wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The problem there is that people seldom try to replicate results which
>>> appear to be wrong on the face of it.
>>>
>> ***What we have here is an experimental piece of the puzzle that shows
>> BECs absorb energy and could account for the 2nd miracle of missing gammas
>> in LENR.  Y E Kim's theory has been given yet another leg up.  First, it
>> was high temperature BECs forming.  Second, it is that BECs absorb energy.
>> BECs do not "disobey" the 2nd law of thermodynamics any more than plasmas
>> do.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Edmund Storms]

Axil, you show that you have no understanding of the second law. The  
laws of thermodynamics simply define how energy must flow in a system  
and how the system must behave as a result of the energy. The laws do  
not address the source. In the case of Rossi, he has an obvious source  
that cannot be identified. This source has no relationship to the laws  
of thermodynamic. Nevertheless, the energy that results from this  
source, regardless of how it is created, MUST follow the laws of  
thermodynamics.  NO VIOLATION EXISTS.


Ed Storms
On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

From the get go, when you come to think in more simple terms, isn’t  
seeing a glowing pipe pumping out six time more energy than is going  
in a de facto violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?




On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
I was going to write this post, but you beat me to it. Your post is  
more elegant and persuasive than mine would have been.


This common flaw in the reason and logic that most people use, this  
2nd law of thermodynamics hangup, is going to make the experimental  
revelation showing BEC activity in LENR too hard for people to take.  
They just won’t believe their lying eyes.



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kevin O'Malley  
 wrote:



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell   
wrote:

O'Malley  wrote:

***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental  
result, everything is in good shape.  Why would you say "That's not  
good"?


This is an experimental finding, not a theory.

It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right  
and therefore this experimental result is probably wrong.

***Sounds a lot like the entire field of LENR.




Until it is widely replicated most people will assume it is wrong.
***Let me see -- LENR, 14,700 replications.  Most people still  
assume it's wrong.  There is the distinct possibility that this BEC  
experiment could be widely replicated and most people will assume it  
is wrong.




The problem there is that people seldom try to replicate results  
which appear to be wrong on the face of it.
***What we have here is an experimental piece of the puzzle that  
shows BECs absorb energy and could account for the 2nd miracle of  
missing gammas in LENR.  Y E Kim's theory has been given yet another  
leg up.  First, it was high temperature BECs forming.  Second, it is  
that BECs absorb energy.  BECs do not "disobey" the 2nd law of  
thermodynamics any more than plasmas do.



- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[DJ Cravens]

If the device was in the 1 to 5  kW range, then a simple hot tub should work.  
A typical 6 foot spa heats at about 1 degree F per hour at 1 kW.  That, some 
copper tubing coils, and a utility pole meter should be enough.  If you really 
wanted to be sure no extra wiring/power was going into it, perhaps a 1kW gas 
generator.
 
I personally think heating two hot tubs side by side - one with a ecat and one 
with a R would be a fair demo and a fairly good "proof".
 
For smaller units (1 to 100W), perhaps heating a tea pot would be reasonable.
 
So yes, I think it could be "done on the cheap".   
 
However, realize Rossi's purpose is not to prove the science.  I don't think he 
is things in the best way, but the science should be done in controlled science 
labs- The development in a warehouse perhaps heating a pool.  People who want 
proof and science should do their own experiments.  Anything else will not be 
adequate for those purposes. 
 
 
D2

 
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:42:07 -0500
From: jabow...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with some 
background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate 19th 
century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would cost "a 
couple hundred bucks maybe...".  Obviously if this is true then the $20,000 
budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would have been 
more than adequate.  Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then it is easy to 
understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to discounting the 
report:

Why bother issuing such a report unless you were trying to mind-f*ck everyone?
Of course, I can come up with any of a variety of plausible explanations for 
why this "couple hundred bucks" estimate may be way off but then I haven't 
actually conducted calorimetry on CF runs.

So the question is "Did this skeptic get emotional because his estimate is 
correct or did he come up with his estimate because he was an emotional 
pseudo-skeptic?"


  

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[James Bowery]

I don't think "a couple hundred bucks" would cover the spa-based system you
describe.  "On the cheap" is relative.


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:29 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:

> If the device was in the 1 to 5  kW range, then a simple hot tub should
> work.  A typical 6 foot spa heats at about 1 degree F per hour at 1 kW.
> That, some copper tubing coils, and a utility pole meter should be enough.
> If you really wanted to be sure no extra wiring/power was going into it,
> perhaps a 1kW gas generator.
>
> I personally think heating two hot tubs side by side - one with a ecat and
> one with a R would be a fair demo and a fairly good "proof".
>
> For smaller units (1 to 100W), perhaps heating a tea pot would be
> reasonable.
>
> So yes, I think it could be "done on the cheap".
>
> However, realize Rossi's purpose is not to prove the science.  I don't
> think he is things in the best way, but the science should be done in
> controlled science labs- The development in a warehouse perhaps heating a
> pool.  People who want proof and science should do their own experiments.
> Anything else will not be adequate for those purposes.
>
>
> D2
>
>
> --
> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:42:07 -0500
> From: jabow...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
>
>
> I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with
> some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate
> 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would
> cost "a couple hundred bucks maybe...".  Obviously if this is true then the
> $20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would
> have been more than adequate.  Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then
> it is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to
> discounting the report:
>
> Why bother issuing such a report unless you were trying to mind-f*ck
> everyone?
>
> Of course, I can come up with any of a variety of *plausible*explanations for 
> why this "couple hundred bucks" estimate may be way off
> but then I haven't actually conducted calorimetry on CF runs.
>
> So the question is "Did this skeptic get emotional because his estimate is
> correct or did he come up with his estimate because he was an emotional
> pseudo-skeptic?"
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[James Bowery]

OK, I'll ask the question a different way:

Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the
researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry?


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> I don't think "a couple hundred bucks" would cover the spa-based system
> you describe.  "On the cheap" is relative.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:29 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:
>
>> If the device was in the 1 to 5  kW range, then a simple hot tub should
>> work.  A typical 6 foot spa heats at about 1 degree F per hour at 1 kW.
>> That, some copper tubing coils, and a utility pole meter should be enough.
>> If you really wanted to be sure no extra wiring/power was going into it,
>> perhaps a 1kW gas generator.
>>
>> I personally think heating two hot tubs side by side - one with a ecat
>> and one with a R would be a fair demo and a fairly good "proof".
>>
>> For smaller units (1 to 100W), perhaps heating a tea pot would be
>> reasonable.
>>
>> So yes, I think it could be "done on the cheap".
>>
>> However, realize Rossi's purpose is not to prove the science.  I don't
>> think he is things in the best way, but the science should be done in
>> controlled science labs- The development in a warehouse perhaps heating a
>> pool.  People who want proof and science should do their own experiments.
>> Anything else will not be adequate for those purposes.
>>
>>
>> D2
>>
>>
>> --
>> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:42:07 -0500
>> From: jabow...@gmail.com
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
>>
>>
>> I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with
>> some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate
>> 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would
>> cost "a couple hundred bucks maybe...".  Obviously if this is true then the
>> $20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would
>> have been more than adequate.  Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then
>> it is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to
>> discounting the report:
>>
>> Why bother issuing such a report unless you were trying to mind-f*ck
>> everyone?
>>
>> Of course, I can come up with any of a variety of *plausible*explanations 
>> for why this "couple hundred bucks" estimate may be way off
>> but then I haven't actually conducted calorimetry on CF runs.
>>
>> So the question is "Did this skeptic get emotional because his estimate
>> is correct or did he come up with his estimate because he was an emotional
>> pseudo-skeptic?"
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Axil Axil]

 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4827v1.pdf

*Two coupled Jaynes-Cummings cells*
**

We develop a theoretical framework to evaluate the energy spectrum,
stationary states, and dielectric susceptibility of two Jaynes-Cummings
systems coupled together by the overlap of their respective longitudinal
field modes, and *we solve and characterize the combined system for the
case that the two atoms and two cavities share a single quantum of energy.*


Here is how two entangled particles share a single quantum of energy


You will notice that the each particle gets a part of the FREQUENCY of the
quantum based on the coupling constant.



See figures 3 and 4.




On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Axil, you show that you have no understanding of the second law. The laws
> of thermodynamics simply define how energy must flow in a system and how
> the system must behave as a result of the energy. The laws do not address
> the source. In the case of Rossi, he has an obvious source that cannot be
> identified. This source has no relationship to the laws of thermodynamic.
> Nevertheless, the energy that results from this source, regardless of how
> it is created, MUST follow the laws of thermodynamics.  NO VIOLATION
> EXISTS.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> From the get go, when you come to think in more simple terms, isn’t seeing
> a glowing pipe pumping out six time more energy than is going in a de facto
> violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> I was going to write this post, but you beat me to it. Your post is more
>> elegant and persuasive than mine would have been.
>>
>>  This common flaw in the reason and logic that most people use, this 2nd
>> law of thermodynamics hangup, is going to make the experimental revelation
>> showing BEC activity in LENR too hard for people to take. They just won’t
>> believe their lying eyes.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
 O'Malley  wrote:

>
>  ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental
> result, everything is in good shape.  Why would you say "That's not good"?
>
> This is an experimental finding, not a theory.
>

 It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right
 and therefore this experimental result is probably wrong.

>>> ***Sounds a lot like the entire field of LENR.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
  Until it is widely replicated most people will assume it is wrong.

>>> ***Let me see -- LENR, 14,700 replications.  Most people still assume
>>> it's wrong.  There is the distinct possibility that this BEC experiment
>>> could be widely replicated and most people will assume it is wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 The problem there is that people seldom try to replicate results which
 appear to be wrong on the face of it.

>>> ***What we have here is an experimental piece of the puzzle that shows
>>> BECs absorb energy and could account for the 2nd miracle of missing gammas
>>> in LENR.  Y E Kim's theory has been given yet another leg up.  First, it
>>> was high temperature BECs forming.  Second, it is that BECs absorb energy.
>>> BECs do not "disobey" the 2nd law of thermodynamics any more than plasmas
>>> do.
>>>
>>>

 - Jed


>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Edmund Storms]

Axil, I have no idea what your comment means in the context of the  
subject we are discussing here. Please explain.


Ed Storms
On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Axil Axil wrote:


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4827v1.pdf

Two coupled Jaynes-Cummings cells

We develop a theoretical framework to evaluate the energy spectrum,  
stationary states, and dielectric susceptibility of two Jaynes- 
Cummings systems coupled together by the overlap of their respective  
longitudinal field modes, and we solve and characterize the combined  
system for the case that the two atoms and two cavities share a  
single quantum of energy.


Here is how two entangled particles share a single quantum of energy

You will notice that the each particle gets a part of the FREQUENCY  
of the quantum based on the coupling constant.


See figures 3 and 4.



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Axil, you show that you have no understanding of the second law. The  
laws of thermodynamics simply define how energy must flow in a  
system and how the system must behave as a result of the energy. The  
laws do not address the source. In the case of Rossi, he has an  
obvious source that cannot be identified. This source has no  
relationship to the laws of thermodynamic. Nevertheless, the energy  
that results from this source, regardless of how it is created, MUST  
follow the laws of thermodynamics.  NO VIOLATION EXISTS.


Ed Storms

On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

From the get go, when you come to think in more simple terms, isn’t  
seeing a glowing pipe pumping out six time more energy than is  
going in a de facto violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?




On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Axil Axil   
wrote:
I was going to write this post, but you beat me to it. Your post is  
more elegant and persuasive than mine would have been.


This common flaw in the reason and logic that most people use, this  
2nd law of thermodynamics hangup, is going to make the experimental  
revelation showing BEC activity in LENR too hard for people to  
take. They just won’t believe their lying eyes.



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kevin O'Malley  
 wrote:



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell  
 wrote:

O'Malley  wrote:

***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental  
result, everything is in good shape.  Why would you say "That's not  
good"?


This is an experimental finding, not a theory.

It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably  
right and therefore this experimental result is probably wrong.

***Sounds a lot like the entire field of LENR.




Until it is widely replicated most people will assume it is wrong.
***Let me see -- LENR, 14,700 replications.  Most people still  
assume it's wrong.  There is the distinct possibility that this BEC  
experiment could be widely replicated and most people will assume  
it is wrong.




The problem there is that people seldom try to replicate results  
which appear to be wrong on the face of it.
***What we have here is an experimental piece of the puzzle that  
shows BECs absorb energy and could account for the 2nd miracle of  
missing gammas in LENR.  Y E Kim's theory has been given yet  
another leg up.  First, it was high temperature BECs forming.   
Second, it is that BECs absorb energy.  BECs do not "disobey" the  
2nd law of thermodynamics any more than plasmas do.



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the
> researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry?
>

They used perfectly normal calorimetry. There is not the slightest chance
output is any less than 3 times input. There is nothing for them to explain.

I do not think it would be good idea to put reactor in an enclosure where
you cannot keep an eye on it. The previous one melted, so I think they
should leave it in the open air.

If they were to build something like an enclosure with flowing water tubes
around the outside, the skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt
those results. They would say that Rossi hid something in the box, or the
flow rate is not correct, or the thermocouples are placed incorrectly, or
this, or that, or an onion.

It does not take much to set off the skeptics. Cude sees one extra wire
with three-phase electricity and he calls that "a rat's nest" of wires. One
wire! No doubt he would call a flow calorimeter a rat's nest of cooling
water pipes and way too many thermocouples.

There is no advantage to flow calorimetry if all you want is clear proof of
excess heat.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Dennis,

I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the experiment 
that you propose.  The recent tests were conducted in the open air and the 
thermal resistance that the ECAT works into has a very strong influence upon 
its operational parameters.

If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat would be 
conducted away from the core.  This loss of internal temperature likely would 
prevent the positive feedback from operating properly.  I suspect that he went 
to a lot of trouble adjusting the parameters so that the experiment would be 
successful in the open air instead of the typical connection methods planned. 

Many skeptics insist upon a simple experiment where the ECAT is naked and is 
easy to observe as protection against scams.  He has made a great deal of 
effort to accommodate their wishes and they are still not satisfied.   Do you 
honestly think that Cude and the others would not come up with some other 
excuses to claim that the test was not accurate if set up as you suggest?

I am convinced that there is no possible way to convince them that his device 
is real.  This should be evident to anyone following the recent non sense that 
has been posted by the pseudo skeptics.  Why would anyone expect for their 
behavior to change since they are 100% convinced that LENR is bunk.  In their 
world, some form of scam must be taking place and they are the heroes that will 
save us from the bad guys.  

Dave


-Original Message-
From: DJ Cravens 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 1:29 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



If the device was in the 1 to 5  kW range, then a simple hot tub should work.  
A typical 6 foot spa heats at about 1 degree F per hour at 1 kW.  That, some 
copper tubing coils, and a utility pole meter should be enough.  If you really 
wanted to be sure no extra wiring/power was going into it, perhaps a 1kW gas 
generator.
 
I personally think heating two hot tubs side by side - one with a ecat and one 
with a R would be a fair demo and a fairly good "proof".
 
For smaller units (1 to 100W), perhaps heating a tea pot would be reasonable.
 
So yes, I think it could be "done on the cheap".   
 
However, realize Rossi's purpose is not to prove the science.  I don't think he 
is things in the best way, but the science should be done in controlled science 
labs- The development in a warehouse perhaps heating a pool.  People who want 
proof and science should do their own experiments.  Anything else will not be 
adequate for those purposes. 
 
 
D2

 


Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:42:07 -0500
From: jabow...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...


I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with some 
background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate 19th 
century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would cost "a 
couple hundred bucks maybe...".  Obviously if this is true then the $20,000 
budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would have been 
more than adequate.  Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then it is easy to 
understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to discounting the 
report:


Why bother issuing such a report unless you were trying to mind-f*ck everyone?


Of course, I can come up with any of a variety of plausible explanations for 
why this "couple hundred bucks" estimate may be way off but then I haven't 
actually conducted calorimetry on CF runs.


So the question is "Did this skeptic get emotional because his estimate is 
correct or did he come up with his estimate because he was an emotional 
pseudo-skeptic?"





  

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[James Bowery]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
> Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the
>> researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry?
>>
>
> They used perfectly normal calorimetry. There is not the slightest chance
> output is any less than 3 times input. There is nothing for them to explain.
>

That may be the case and if so one would not expect to see an explanation
in the paper itself.  On the other hand, given the controversial
environment they might reasonably be expected to say something like the
following, at least in an interview if not in the paper itself:


>
> I do not think it would be good idea to put reactor in an enclosure where
> you cannot keep an eye on it. The previous one melted, so I think they
> should leave it in the open air.
>
> If they were to build something like an enclosure with flowing water tubes
> around the outside, the skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt
> those results. They would say that Rossi hid something in the box, or the
> flow rate is not correct, or the thermocouples are placed incorrectly, or
> this, or that, or an onion.
>
> It does not take much to set off the skeptics. Cude sees one extra wire
> with three-phase electricity and he calls that "a rat's nest" of wires. One
> wire! No doubt he would call a flow calorimeter a rat's nest of cooling
> water pipes and way too many thermocouples.
>
> There is no advantage to flow calorimetry if all you want is clear proof
> of excess heat.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:


> If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat
> would be conducted away from the core.
>

I think the plan by Brian Ahern is to put the device in an air filled box
with a copper pipe wound around the outside or the inside wall, and water
flowing through the copper pipe. This would be a large flow calorimeter. I
do not think it would be very accurate. I doubt it would be any better than
the present calorimetry.

There is a photo of a similar calorimeter at Defkalion.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

I would think that most of the $20K went to airfare, hotels and meals. you
can't expect the scientists to work for free.

-Mark

 

From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:42 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

 

I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with some
background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate 19th
century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would cost
"a couple hundred bucks maybe...".  Obviously if this is true then the
$20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would
have been more than adequate.  Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then it
is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to
discounting the report:

 

Why bother issuing such a report unless you were trying to mind-f*ck
everyone?

 

Of course, I can come up with any of a variety of plausible explanations for
why this "couple hundred bucks" estimate may be way off but then I haven't
actually conducted calorimetry on CF runs.

 

So the question is "Did this skeptic get emotional because his estimate is
correct or did he come up with his estimate because he was an emotional
pseudo-skeptic?"

 

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Axil Axil]

 The atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate follow the Jaynes-Cummings model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model

Jaynes–Cummings model


More to the point, when a Ni/H system get going after state up, the systems
becomes totally entangled.


This type of system is described by the Jaynes–Cummings–Hubbard model

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings%E2%80%93Hubbard_model

Drawing a connection between the Ni/H reactor and a Bose-Einstein
condensate as follows:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20208523

In spite of their different natures, light and matter can be unified under
the strong-coupling regime, yielding superpositions of the two, referred to
as dressed states or polaritons. After initially being demonstrated in bulk
semiconductors and atomic systems, strong-coupling phenomena have been
recently realized in solid-state optical microcavities. Strong coupling is
an essential ingredient in the physics spanning from many-body quantum
coherence phenomena, such as Bose-Einstein condensation and superfluidity,
to cavity quantum electrodynamics. Within cavity quantum electrodynamics,
the Jaynes-Cummings model describes the interaction of a single fermionic
two-level system with a single bosonic photon mode. For a photon number
larger than one, known as quantum strong coupling, a significant
anharmonicity is predicted for the ladder-like spectrum of dressed states.
For optical transitions in semiconductor nanostructures, first signatures
of the quantum strong coupling were recently reported. Here we use advanced
coherent nonlinear spectroscopy to explore a strongly coupled
exciton-cavity system. We measure and simulate its four-wave mixing
response, granting direct access to the coherent dynamics of the first and
second rungs of the Jaynes-Cummings ladder. The agreement of the rich
experimental evidence with the predictions of the Jaynes-Cummings model is
proof of the quantum strong-coupling regime in the investigated solid-state
system.



This says to me that the Ni/H system obeys the same rules as the BEC.

I showed you that in such a Jaynes-Cummings system, the atoms share the
frequency of a quantum as defined by a coupling constant.

This how the FREQUENT of a gamma ray quantum is shared(chopped up) between
all the ensemble members of the NI/H system.






On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Axil, I have no idea what your comment means in the context of the subject
> we are discussing here. Please explain.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4827v1.pdf
>
> *Two coupled Jaynes-Cummings cells*
> **
> We develop a theoretical framework to evaluate the energy spectrum,
> stationary states, and dielectric susceptibility of two Jaynes-Cummings
> systems coupled together by the overlap of their respective longitudinal
> field modes, and *we solve and characterize the combined system for the
> case that the two atoms and two cavities share a single quantum of energy.
> *
>
>
> Here is how two entangled particles share a single quantum of energy
>
> You will notice that the each particle gets a part of the FREQUENCY of the
> quantum based on the coupling constant.
>
>
> See figures 3 and 4.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Axil, you show that you have no understanding of the second law. The laws
>> of thermodynamics simply define how energy must flow in a system and how
>> the system must behave as a result of the energy. The laws do not address
>> the source. In the case of Rossi, he has an obvious source that cannot be
>> identified. This source has no relationship to the laws of thermodynamic.
>> Nevertheless, the energy that results from this source, regardless of how
>> it is created, MUST follow the laws of thermodynamics.  NO VIOLATION
>> EXISTS.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>>  From the get go, when you come to think in more simple terms, isn’t
>> seeing a glowing pipe pumping out six time more energy than is going in a
>> de facto violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>>  I was going to write this post, but you beat me to it. Your post is
>>> more elegant and persuasive than mine would have been.
>>>
>>>  This common flaw in the reason and logic that most people use, this 2nd
>>> law of thermodynamics hangup, is going to make the experimental revelation
>>> showing BEC activity in LENR too hard for people to take. They just won’t
>>> believe their lying eyes.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>>>


 On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> O'Malley  wrote:
>
>>
>>  ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental
>> result, everything is in good shape.  Why would you say "That's not 
>> good"?
>>
>> This is an experimental fin

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

There is nothing for them to explain.
>>
>
> That may be the case and if so one would not expect to see an explanation
> in the paper itself.  On the other hand, given the controversial
> environment they might reasonably be expected to say something like the
> following, at least in an interview if not in the paper itself . . .
>

You cannot expect them to say everything in the paper. If they were to stop
and conduct interviews for every objection raised by skeptics they would be
interviewing 12 hours a day, and they would get nothing else done. They
should only address rational objections, whether these objections are
raised by skeptics or supporters. The skeptics do not deserve extra
attention or mollycoddling. Most of their ideas have no merit and are not
worth a response, such as the notion that 3-phase electricity is difficult
to measure.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

I see what you are referring to.  If the ECAT is allowed to operate in air of 
roughly the same local temperature, then it should behave the same.  I 
understood that Dennis was suggesting a configuration with much tighter 
coupling to the coolant.

The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into which it 
operates.  This is what should be expected.

My personal opinion is that Rossi used the best approach possible to eliminate 
the most questions and they still complained.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 2:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...


David Roberson  wrote:
 


If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat would be 
conducted away from the core.



I think the plan by Brian Ahern is to put the device in an air filled box with 
a copper pipe wound around the outside or the inside wall, and water flowing 
through the copper pipe. This would be a large flow calorimeter. I do not think 
it would be very accurate. I doubt it would be any better than the present 
calorimetry.


There is a photo of a similar calorimeter at Defkalion.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: scrabble challenge

[Harry Veeder]

A Whack on the Side of the Head:
How to Unlock Your Mind for Innovation
by Roger van Oech

book review
http://www.creating.bz/our-reading-circle/whack.html
Oech identifies ten mental blocks which limit creativity:

The Right Answer

That's Not Logical

Follow the Rules

Be Practical

Play Is Frivolous

That's Not My Area

Avoid Ambiguity

Don't Be Foolish

To Err Is Wrong

I'm Not Creative


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Brad Lowe  wrote:

> French and Flench  are the
> longest valid scrabble words.
>
> But I missed the point...
> - Brad
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>> With the seven letters LENR CF H make a word.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[James Bowery]

Do the arithmetic, Mark.

Although it is true that "a couple hundred bucks" is only 1% of $20,000 and
that it is ridiculous think of the other 99% as going into technical
aspects alone, even if 90% of the budget were for "overhead" that would
still leave a budget of $2,000 for the technical aspects, which means "a
couple hundred bucks" would be 10% of the available budget.  Are you trying
to say that adequate calorimetry wouldn't be worth even 10% of the budget
allocated for equipment?


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:12 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> I would think that most of the $20K went to airfare, hotels and meals… you
> can’t expect the scientists to work for free…
>
> -Mark
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 03, 2013 9:42 AM
> *To:* vortex-l
>
> *Subject:* [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
>
> ** **
>
> I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with
> some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate
> 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would
> cost "a couple hundred bucks maybe...".  Obviously if this is true then the
> $20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would
> have been more than adequate.  Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then
> it is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to
> discounting the report:
>
> ** **
>
> Why bother issuing such a report unless you were trying to mind-f*ck
> everyone?
>
> ** **
>
> Of course, I can come up with any of a variety of *plausible*explanations for 
> why this "couple hundred bucks" estimate may be way off
> but then I haven't actually conducted calorimetry on CF runs.
>
> ** **
>
> So the question is "Did this skeptic get emotional because his estimate is
> correct or did he come up with his estimate because he was an emotional
> pseudo-skeptic?"
>
> ** **
>

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:


> Although it is true that "a couple hundred bucks" is only 1% of $20,000
> and that it is ridiculous think of the other 99% as going into technical
> aspects alone, even if 90% of the budget were for "overhead" . . .
>

I have significant experience with flow calorimeters. I would say:

1. It would end up costing much more than a few hundred dollars.

2. It would take weeks of testing and futzing around to make it work.

3. It would clog up and it would leak. They always do. I would hate to work
with something like this running constantly for months!

4. The skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt it, as they did with
Rossi's other flow calorimeters (some of which I will grant were not good).

I agree with Dave Roberson that the "Rossi used the best approach possible
to eliminate the most questions and [the skeptics] still complained." The
"most questions" means the most you can address in one test. No test can
answer all questions or lay to rest all doubts. That's why you have to do
multiple tests.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Axil Axil]

 I found a great paper that might lay all this stuff out. I have not read
it yet but it looks real good after doing a quick scan.

http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~pelster/Theses/nietner.pdf


Quantum Phase Transition of Light in the Jaynes-Cummings Lattice








On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate follow the Jaynes-Cummings model.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model
>
> Jaynes–Cummings model
>
>
> More to the point, when a Ni/H system get going after state up, the
> systems becomes totally entangled.
>
>
> This type of system is described by the Jaynes–Cummings–Hubbard model
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings%E2%80%93Hubbard_model
>
> Drawing a connection between the Ni/H reactor and a Bose-Einstein
> condensate as follows:
>
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20208523
>
> In spite of their different natures, light and matter can be unified under
> the strong-coupling regime, yielding superpositions of the two, referred to
> as dressed states or polaritons. After initially being demonstrated in bulk
> semiconductors and atomic systems, strong-coupling phenomena have been
> recently realized in solid-state optical microcavities. Strong coupling is
> an essential ingredient in the physics spanning from many-body quantum
> coherence phenomena, such as Bose-Einstein condensation and superfluidity,
> to cavity quantum electrodynamics. Within cavity quantum electrodynamics,
> the Jaynes-Cummings model describes the interaction of a single fermionic
> two-level system with a single bosonic photon mode. For a photon number
> larger than one, known as quantum strong coupling, a significant
> anharmonicity is predicted for the ladder-like spectrum of dressed states.
> For optical transitions in semiconductor nanostructures, first signatures
> of the quantum strong coupling were recently reported. Here we use advanced
> coherent nonlinear spectroscopy to explore a strongly coupled
> exciton-cavity system. We measure and simulate its four-wave mixing
> response, granting direct access to the coherent dynamics of the first and
> second rungs of the Jaynes-Cummings ladder. The agreement of the rich
> experimental evidence with the predictions of the Jaynes-Cummings model is
> proof of the quantum strong-coupling regime in the investigated solid-state
> system.
>
>
>
> This says to me that the Ni/H system obeys the same rules as the BEC.
>
> I showed you that in such a Jaynes-Cummings system, the atoms share the
> frequency of a quantum as defined by a coupling constant.
>
> This how the FREQUENT of a gamma ray quantum is shared(chopped up) between
> all the ensemble members of the NI/H system.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Axil, I have no idea what your comment means in the context of the
>> subject we are discussing here. Please explain.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>>  http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4827v1.pdf
>>
>>  *Two coupled Jaynes-Cummings cells*
>> **
>>  We develop a theoretical framework to evaluate the energy spectrum,
>> stationary states, and dielectric susceptibility of two Jaynes-Cummings
>> systems coupled together by the overlap of their respective longitudinal
>> field modes, and *we solve and characterize the combined system for the
>> case that the two atoms and two cavities share a single quantum of energy.
>> *
>>
>>
>>  Here is how two entangled particles share a single quantum of energy
>>
>>  You will notice that the each particle gets a part of the FREQUENCY of
>> the quantum based on the coupling constant.
>>
>>
>>  See figures 3 and 4.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> Axil, you show that you have no understanding of the second law. The
>>> laws of thermodynamics simply define how energy must flow in a system and
>>> how the system must behave as a result of the energy. The laws do not
>>> address the source. In the case of Rossi, he has an obvious source that
>>> cannot be identified. This source has no relationship to the laws of
>>> thermodynamic. Nevertheless, the energy that results from this source,
>>> regardless of how it is created, MUST follow the laws of thermodynamics.
>>>  NO VIOLATION EXISTS.
>>>
>>> Ed Storms
>>>
>>> On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>>  From the get go, when you come to think in more simple terms, isn’t
>>> seeing a glowing pipe pumping out six time more energy than is going in a
>>> de facto violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
  I was going to write this post, but you beat me to it. Your post is
 more elegant and persuasive than mine would have been.

  This common flaw in the reason and logic that most people use, this 2nd
 law of thermodynamics hangup, is going to make the experimental revelation
 showing

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

>
> It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right and
>> therefore this experimental result is probably wrong.
>>
> ***Sounds a lot like the entire field of LENR.
>

Cold fusion does not challenge the laws of thermodynamics; it challenges
some of the laws of plasma fusion. However, the effect is the same. That is
what makes it difficult to persuade people to replicate, and difficult to
persuade them it is real.



> Until it is widely replicated most people will assume it is wrong.
>>
> ***Let me see -- LENR, 14,700 replications.
>

If you replicate an effect that challenges the laws of thermodynamics
enough times, those laws are wrong.



>   Most people still assume it's wrong.
>

Those people are irrational. You should discount their views.

- Jed

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Roarty, Francis X]

Yes.. [snip] The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into 
which it operates.  This is what should be expected.[/snip]
Perhaps it is just me but too little seems to be said about the heat sinking.. 
It is obviously part of the control loop even if passive in ambient air but the 
coolant flow variation presents much opportunity for the warm up and ramping up 
of the thermal output. It is a push pull between heating and sinking like 
isometrics to attain body resistance.  Rossi is trying to firmly control 
heating and cooling right at the balance point where runaway has initiated but 
the heat sinking stops it from gaining ground or damaging itself. It would have 
been interesting if blower fans were running on the destructive test reactor as 
it came up..my guess is that it would have still gotten just as hot and still 
self destructed despite all the additional heat being taken away by the fans 
with no additional current into the resistors once the system got up to the 
active region.
Fran

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 2:21 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

I see what you are referring to.  If the ECAT is allowed to operate in air of 
roughly the same local temperature, then it should behave the same.  I 
understood that Dennis was suggesting a configuration with much tighter 
coupling to the coolant.

The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into which it 
operates.  This is what should be expected.

My personal opinion is that Rossi used the best approach possible to eliminate 
the most questions and they still complained.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>>
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 2:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
David Roberson mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote:

If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat would be 
conducted away from the core.

I think the plan by Brian Ahern is to put the device in an air filled box with 
a copper pipe wound around the outside or the inside wall, and water flowing 
through the copper pipe. This would be a large flow calorimeter. I do not think 
it would be very accurate. I doubt it would be any better than the present 
calorimetry.

There is a photo of a similar calorimeter at Defkalion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[James Bowery]

OK, so the take-away messages is:

"No, the authors of the paper have not provided any rational for choosing
their form of calorimetry -- not even informally.  Moreover, the claim that
adequate flow calorimetry for the E-Cat HT would cost 'a couple hundred
bucks' likely indicates pseudoskepticism."


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> Although it is true that "a couple hundred bucks" is only 1% of $20,000
>> and that it is ridiculous think of the other 99% as going into technical
>> aspects alone, even if 90% of the budget were for "overhead" . . .
>>
>
> I have significant experience with flow calorimeters. I would say:
>
> 1. It would end up costing much more than a few hundred dollars.
>
> 2. It would take weeks of testing and futzing around to make it work.
>
> 3. It would clog up and it would leak. They always do. I would hate to
> work with something like this running constantly for months!
>
> 4. The skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt it, as they did with
> Rossi's other flow calorimeters (some of which I will grant were not good).
>
> I agree with Dave Roberson that the "Rossi used the best approach possible
> to eliminate the most questions and [the skeptics] still complained." The
> "most questions" means the most you can address in one test. No test can
> answer all questions or lay to rest all doubts. That's why you have to do
> multiple tests.
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[DJ Cravens]

I did not envision them submersing the cat into the water.  More like passing 
water/steam through as they did in their earlier tests with a flow system.  
It is very difficult to measure air heating.
(note, I have also been able to do flow cal with racing car brake fluid at 
higher temps  (you can do that up to about 300C) - hence my mention of copper 
coils. 
 
portable spas can be had for $600.

 Of course the golden standard is to have it unplugged from the wall and self 
sustaining for an extended time.
 
I personally would be more accepting of a long running small wattage unit that 
was standalone than a kW unit plugged into the wall.- Say a 1 Watt-er on a 
glass table. 
 
I wonder if Rossi's system has a critical mass or if it can be scaled down.  I 
would think that with the proper insulation its working temperature could be 
maintained with a smaller sample.
 
Crude - I would not worry about trying to convince him.  He is not the 
gatekeeper.  I think it is best to ignore some criticism and just keep moving 
forward.  A demo is not a science experiment no matter what the critics try to 
make it and the standards they wish to hold it to.  
 
 
"Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you 
are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe 
that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an 
end requires courage..Do not go where ever the path leads but go where 
there is none and leave a trail. Ralph Waldo Emerson 
D2
 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:01:20 -0400


Dennis,

 

I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the experiment 
that you propose.  The recent tests were conducted in the open air and the 
thermal resistance that the ECAT works into has a very strong influence upon 
its operational parameters.

 

If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat would be 
conducted away from the core.  This loss of internal temperature likely would 
prevent the positive feedback from operating properly.  I suspect that he went 
to a lot of trouble adjusting the parameters so that the experiment would be 
successful in the open air instead of the typical connection methods planned. 

 

Many skeptics insist upon a simple experiment where the ECAT is naked and is 
easy to observe as protection against scams.  He has made a great deal of 
effort to accommodate their wishes and they are still not satisfied.   Do you 
honestly think that Cude and the others would not come up with some other 
excuses to claim that the test was not accurate if set up as you suggest?

 

I am convinced that there is no possible way to convince them that his device 
is real.  This should be evident to anyone following the recent non sense that 
has been posted by the pseudo skeptics.  Why would anyone expect for their 
behavior to change since they are 100% convinced that LENR is bunk.  In their 
world, some form of scam must be taking place and they are the heroes that will 
save us from the bad guys.  

 

Dave





-Original Message-

From: DJ Cravens 

To: vortex-l 

Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 1:29 pm

Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...













If the device was in the 1 to 5  kW range, then a simple hot tub should work.  
A typical 6 foot spa heats at about 1 degree F per hour at 1 kW.  That, some 
copper tubing coils, and a utility pole meter should be enough.  If you really 
wanted to be sure no extra wiring/power was going into it, perhaps a 1kW gas 
generator.

 

I personally think heating two hot tubs side by side - one with a ecat and one 
with a R would be a fair demo and a fairly good "proof".

 

For smaller units (1 to 100W), perhaps heating a tea pot would be reasonable.

 

So yes, I think it could be "done on the cheap".   

 

However, realize Rossi's purpose is not to prove the science.  I don't think he 
is things in the best way, but the science should be done in controlled science 
labs- The development in a warehouse perhaps heating a pool.  People who want 
proof and science should do their own experiments.  Anything else will not be 
adequate for those purposes. 

 

 

D2



 


Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:42:07 -0500

From: jabow...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Subject: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...




I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with some 
background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate 19th 
century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would cost "a 
couple hundred bucks maybe...".  Obviously if this is true then the $20,000 
budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would have been 
more than adequate.  Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then it is easy to 
understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to discoun

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Just being realistic James.

 

A simple 'couple hundred bucks' calorimeter is NOT going to satisfy the
skeptics; they will pick it apart and another test would have been wasted.
Getting a quality data-acquisition system and multiple thermocouples/RTDs so
there is redundancy in the measurements (enough to satisfy everyone) would
be way more than a few hundred bucks.  In our testing we used a LAN-based,
hi-res data acquisition unit from NI and it was over $1000, plus low-mass,
fast response RTDs at $50 each.  And who is going to put all this
together I suppose you expect them to work for free too.  Was some of
the measurement equipment rented?  The original comment is way too
simplistic and unrealistic.  All I am saying is that a budget of $20K for
doing several tests like was done is actually pretty cheap when one
considers ALL the aspects that require $$.

 

Sure, Rossi could have purposely chosen this air method after taking
considerable time to find clever ways to fake it, but it is just as likely
that with all the accusations of fraud using the flow calorimeter in
previous tests, that he and the test team tried to arrange a different setup
to avoid previous criticisms.  I think it prudent to wait and see if the 6
month test makes further improvements given the feedback from the recent
tests.

 

-Mark

 

From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 11:22 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

 

Do the arithmetic, Mark. 

Although it is true that "a couple hundred bucks" is only 1% of $20,000 and
that it is ridiculous think of the other 99% as going into technical aspects
alone, even if 90% of the budget were for "overhead" that would still leave
a budget of $2,000 for the technical aspects, which means "a couple hundred
bucks" would be 10% of the available budget.  Are you trying to say that
adequate calorimetry wouldn't be worth even 10% of the budget allocated for
equipment?

 

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:12 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
wrote:

I would think that most of the $20K went to airfare, hotels and meals. you
can't expect the scientists to work for free.

-Mark

 

From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:42 AM
To: vortex-l


Subject: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

 

I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with some
background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate 19th
century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would cost
"a couple hundred bucks maybe...".  Obviously if this is true then the
$20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would
have been more than adequate.  Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then it
is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to
discounting the report:

 

Why bother issuing such a report unless you were trying to mind-f*ck
everyone?

 

Of course, I can come up with any of a variety of plausible explanations for
why this "couple hundred bucks" estimate may be way off but then I haven't
actually conducted calorimetry on CF runs.

 

So the question is "Did this skeptic get emotional because his estimate is
correct or did he come up with his estimate because he was an emotional
pseudo-skeptic?"

 

 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:40 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> OK, so the take-away messages is:
>
> "No, the authors of the paper have not provided any rational for choosing
> their form of calorimetry -- not even informally.
>

I do not see why they need to provide a rationale. The choice is manifestly
a good one. It is simple, direct and foolproof. My first reaction to this a
few weeks ago was "this is exactly how I would do it." I have not heard
from any experts who disagree. You have to find a method that works with a
cell of these dimensions running at these temperatures, with control
problems such that the cell sometimes melts. That is not an easy set of
specifications to meet.



>   Moreover, the claim that adequate flow calorimetry for the E-Cat HT
> would cost 'a couple hundred bucks' likely indicates pseudoskepticism."
>

It certainly indicates someone who has never tried to construct a large
flow calorimeter.

The major problem with this idea is that a large flow calorimeter would be
a custom-built instrument. As I said, it would take weeks to plug the leaks
and find a flowmeter that does not clog up and stop working every few days.
I would imagine they would spend a thousand dollars on that alone. What you
end up with is a large custom-built gadget that no one understands or
trusts, other than the people who made it. It would be like Scott Little's
MOAC.

In contrast, the present tests rely on industry-standard techniques and
off-the-shelf instruments. Only three instruments: the watt meter, the IR
camera, and the thermocouple to confirm the IR camera. Nothing could be
simpler. I mean that: no method of calorimetry could be conceptually
simpler than this. It is not precise, but it is reliable, and accurate
enough to prove the point. It reduces the skeptics to arguing that a
top-quality IR camera does not work according to the manufacturer's
specifications.

If I tell you that a flow calorimeter constructed by people who have never
made one before does not work as well as they think it does, you would be
well advised to believe me. If I tell you that an off-the-shelf IR camera
used with standard emissivity surface samples supplied by the manufacturer
is off by a factor of three, despite the fact that it agrees to within a
few degrees with a thermocouple, you would think I'm crazy. You would be
right.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

R. W. Emerson wrote:


> "Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you
> that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you
> to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and
> follow it to an end requires courage..Do not go where ever the path
> leads but go where there is none and leave a trail. Ralph Waldo
> Emerson
>

Fine except for the last sentence. Please do not select a method of
calorimetry where is no path! Select a conventional method. The most boring
method you can find, with off-the-shelf instruments and textbook techniques
that no HVAC engineer would quarrel with.

Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> It is not precise, but it is reliable, and accurate enough to prove the
> point.
>

The point is, this is a huge effect. It runs at high temperatures and it is
at least three times input. McKubre needed a high precision flow
calorimeter because he was trying to measure an effect that usually occurs
at about a third of a watt and sometimes at 3 W with maybe 5 W of input.
That is difficult. You need high precision and accuracy to be highly
confident of the result. When there are 300 W going in a 900 W coming out
and the cell is so hot it is sometimes incandescent you do not need flow
calorimetry.

Using a method that is more precise or more accurate than the task calls
for does not increase mathematical confidence in the results, or my mental
confidence. On the contrary, it decreases my confidence. It shows that the
person doing the tests does not understand how to do an experiment. You
should always select the simplest and most direct method that will work
with adequate precision and accuracy. Never make things more complicated
than they need to be.

When digital thermometers became widely available in the 1970s, I saw some
medical research from a grad student in Japan in which the temperature of
lab rats was measured and reported to four digits of precision. Obviously,
the temperature of the body of a rat is not uniform, and it varies from
moment to moment. A medical researcher who would report that the body
temperature was 99.6873°C does not inspire confidence in his ability. He
looks like someone who does not understand biology, instruments, error
bars, or gradeschool arithmetic. Meaningless extra digits of precision
prove nothing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> Cold fusion does not challenge the laws of thermodynamics;
>
***Yup.  A lot of people have the IMPRESsion that it challenges the 2nd
law, but that isn't the case at all.  In fact here, this accusation that
BECs absorb energy and violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, is a
misguided impression as well.



> it challenges some of the laws of plasma fusion. However, the effect is
> the same. That is what makes it difficult to persuade people to replicate,
> and difficult to persuade them it is real.
>
***Difficult but not impossible.  That is, unless one gets their paycheck
from the 'hot fusion establishment'.  It is orders of magnitude more
difficult to convince someone who is paid not to be convinced.


>
>
> If you replicate an effect that challenges the laws of thermodynamics
> enough times, those laws are wrong.
>
***True of any scientific law.  Most people don't realize that a scientific
law is simply a mathematically rigorous observation.  We have a law of
gravity but no accepted theory of gravity.  How many replications does it
take for a rational scientist to accept the finding?  It used to be just 2
or 3, but in this field it seems to be hundreds or thousands.


>
>
>
>> Kevin:   Most people still assume it's wrong.
>>
>
> Jed: Those people are irrational. You should discount their views.
>
***Unfortunately, that includes the great majority of people.   I would
guess that 95% of the population (who had an opinion) thought the Wright
brothers were frauds until they finally had some money on the table & IP
protection and demo'd their device to the army.  Even then, Glenn Curtiss
and others tried to steal their IP, with the willing complicity of the
Smithsonian Institution.   I would guess that at this point (Rossi being
who he is) that 98% of the population think he's a fraud.  Perhaps 90% of
people who have an opinion on LENR think it's a pathological science, on
the same level as flat earthers, unicorn admirers, and perpetual motion
devices.

>

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[DJ Cravens]

do not try to take the quote out of the obvious intended context.  I was 
obviously referring to the pioneering efforts of a new field of understanding.
example just because you make a new path does in no way mean you cannot use 
existing shoes...   You missed the entire point.
 
I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high 
wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs.
 
D2
 
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:05:57 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

R. W. Emerson wrote:
 
"Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you 
are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe 
that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an 
end requires courage..Do not go where ever the path leads but go where 
there is none and leave a trail. Ralph Waldo Emerson 

Fine except for the last sentence. Please do not select a method of calorimetry 
where is no path! Select a conventional method. The most boring method you can 
find, with off-the-shelf instruments and textbook techniques that no HVAC 
engineer would quarrel with.

Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with.
- Jed
  

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[DJ Cravens]

Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed.   Just heating a container of 
water - pool, spa, teapot   You do not need to measure flow rates if the 
effect is significant. 
It avoids all the % steam questions, the emissivity numbers, the air flow, the 
cameras..
It is about the simplest measure of heat. 
 
D2
 
 

 
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:21:06 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

I wrote: 
It is not precise, but it is reliable, and accurate enough to prove the point.

The point is, this is a huge effect. It runs at high temperatures and it is at 
least three times input. McKubre needed a high precision flow calorimeter 
because he was trying to measure an effect that usually occurs at about a third 
of a watt and sometimes at 3 W with maybe 5 W of input. That is difficult. You 
need high precision and accuracy to be highly confident of the result. When 
there are 300 W going in a 900 W coming out and the cell is so hot it is 
sometimes incandescent you do not need flow calorimetry.

Using a method that is more precise or more accurate than the task calls for 
does not increase mathematical confidence in the results, or my mental 
confidence. On the contrary, it decreases my confidence. It shows that the 
person doing the tests does not understand how to do an experiment. You should 
always select the simplest and most direct method that will work with adequate 
precision and accuracy. Never make things more complicated than they need to be.

When digital thermometers became widely available in the 1970s, I saw some 
medical research from a grad student in Japan in which the temperature of lab 
rats was measured and reported to four digits of precision. Obviously, the 
temperature of the body of a rat is not uniform, and it varies from moment to 
moment. A medical researcher who would report that the body temperature was 
99.6873°C does not inspire confidence in his ability. He looks like someone who 
does not understand biology, instruments, error bars, or gradeschool 
arithmetic. Meaningless extra digits of precision prove nothing.

- Jed
  

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Mark Gibbs]

Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the
propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made
irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other
words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't
have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still
validate the claim of significant over unity energy output.

[mg]


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> R. W. Emerson wrote:
>
>
>>  "Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you
>> that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you
>> to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and
>> follow it to an end requires courage..Do not go where ever the path
>> leads but go where there is none and leave a trail. Ralph Waldo
>> Emerson
>>
>
> Fine except for the last sentence. Please do not select a method of
> calorimetry where is no path! Select a conventional method. The most boring
> method you can find, with off-the-shelf instruments and textbook techniques
> that no HVAC engineer would quarrel with.
>
> Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the
> finding?  It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be
> hundreds or thousands.
>

I think for most claims it used to be five or 10 good replications. It
depends on many factors such as the signal-to-noise ratio, the complexity
of the instruments, the extent to which the results call for new and
difficult techniques, and so on. It was difficult to believe polywater
claims because in every case the instruments were operating at the extreme
limits of their capabilities. It is much easier to believe the claim that a
mammal has been cloned because you can look at the baby and see it is a
twin of the parent, and you can test the DNA.

In the case of cold fusion, the experiment is very difficult to replicate,
but the results are easy to understand. The first tier of people to
replicate were the crème de la crème of electrochemistry. I mean people who
now have laboratories named after them such as Ernest Yeager, and people
who should have laboratories named after them such as John Bockris. Also
Miles, Mizuno, McKubre, Kunimatsu, Appleby, Will, Okamoto, Huggins and so
on.

The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of
electrochemistry. Just about every top electrochemist in the world
replicated within a year or so. They were all certain the results were
real. Anyone who does not believe that kind of thing, from this kind of
people, does not understand experimental science.

Over in the Forbes comment section Gibbs referred to these people as "the
LENR community." It would be more accurate to call them "every major
academic electrochemist on earth." That puts it in a different perspective.

The problem with skeptics is not that they don't believe these results. Or
that they have found problems with the results. The problem is they have
zero knowledge of this subject. They have never read any papers and they
never heard of Yeager or Will or anyone else. They think there are no
papers! They would not know a flow calorimeter if it bit them on the butt.
People who are completely ignorant of a subject have no right to any
opinion about it.

A few skeptics such as Cude have looked at results, but they have strange
notions about them. Cude thinks these graphs show only random results with
no meaning or pattern:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg

This is sort of the opposite of a Rorschach test. Cude looks at an ordered
set of data that constitutes irrefutable proof of a control parameter, but
he sees only random noise.



> Kevin:   Most people still assume it's wrong.
>>>
>>
>> Jed: Those people are irrational. You should discount their views.
>>
> ***Unfortunately, that includes the great majority of people.   I would
> guess that 95% of the population (who had an opinion) thought the Wright
> brothers were frauds until they finally had some money on the table & IP
> protection . . .
>

That is true, but that is human nature. The Wright brothers and others
managed to succeed despite these problems, so perhaps we will succeed now.
The world has not grown more irrational.



> Perhaps 90% of people who have an opinion on LENR think it's a
> pathological science, on the same level as flat earthers, unicorn admirers,
> and perpetual motion devices.
>
>>
That may be true, although you would have to conduct a public opinion
survey to confirm it. However, such opinions are not based on knowledge or
rationality so we cannot change them. There is no point to worrying about
them. We should concentrate on people such as the readers at LENR-CANR.org.
We should ignore people who will not do their homework.

We only need a small number of supporters to win this fight. The thing is,
we need people who have lots of money. Barrels of money. And guts. If we
could win over Bill Gates I would not care if anyone else in the world
believes the results. He alone would be enough.

I do not think there is any chance of convincing Gates, by the way. He
would not listen to Arthur Clarke so I doubt he will listen to anyone else.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "DJ Cravens" 
> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 10:29:52 AM

> For smaller units (1 to 100W), perhaps heating a tea pot would be
> reasonable.

Unfortunately, I think that the person who made the "cup of tea" bet has passed 
on. 
(My forgetory will produce his name in about 10 minutes while I'm doing 
something else)

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

DJ Cravens  wrote:

do not try to take the quote out of the obvious intended context.
>

Sure, we get that. I was just ragging on "extraordinary claims" claim,
which I despise.



> I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not
> high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs.
>

That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to
melt, or explode, so it is not an option. We have to take what mother
nature has given us, and work with it as best we can.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Alan Fletcher]

> Unfortunately, I think that the person who made the "cup of tea" bet
> has passed on.
> (My forgetory will produce his name in about 10 minutes while I'm
> doing something else)

It wasn't tea .. it was a bet by a professor that would be paid off when a cold 
fusion device delivered 1 kWh to the grid, or was available at the local 
hardware store.

His name STILL eludes me !!!

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jones Beene]

 

 

The reputed gain is so high - Rossi would be wise to forego calorimetry and
go directly to conversion of heat to electricity.

 

Here is the device that could do that - ORC in a small format. This device
is perfect for the HotCat.

 

http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/IT10_ORC_System.html

 

At 6:1 gain, Rossi should be able to close the loop.

 

 

From: mark.gi...@gmail.com 

 

Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the
propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made
irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other
words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't
have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still
validate the claim of significant over unity energy output.

 

[mg]

 

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

R. W. Emerson wrote:

 


"Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that
you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to
believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and
follow it to an end requires courage..Do not go where ever the path
leads but go where there is none and leave a trail. Ralph Waldo Emerson 

 

Fine except for the last sentence. Please do not select a method of
calorimetry where is no path! Select a conventional method. The most boring
method you can find, with off-the-shelf instruments and textbook techniques
that no HVAC engineer would quarrel with.

 

Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with.

 

- Jed

 

 

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[DJ Cravens]

yes, calorimetry is not needed IF you believe the claims, methods, and the 
effect.  As you may know, I don't doubt the reality of CF/LENR in general.  
However, if you goal is to convince "non-believer" then it is best to avoid 
systems where you have to know the exact waveforms, cables, instruments, 
material emissivity's,.  you name it. Perhaps the reaction is controllable, 
perhaps not.  Perhaps the reproducibility between samples is solved, perhaps 
not. 
 
Heating a pot/container of water from a standalone unit is the way to go  
in my humble opinion. 
 
Perhaps there will be a commercial product in the near future or not.  Perhaps 
there will be a "real" company that will come out and endorse the devices in 
the near future, perhaps not.
Until that time their will be vocal skeptics. And the more complex and 
calculation based the demo, the less likely it will be to accepted by the 
"skeptics".  
 
Again, from my vantage point, the best demo would be a stand alone that does 
not require any calculations or understanding of how a specific instrument work 
or was used.  That  should become possible somewhere around a COP of 5 to 10.  
Until then there will be doubts. 
I think we are within striking distance of that.  (note at COP 6 you would need 
a 17% eff. engine - that is will within range if you are working between 300C 
and 25C). 
 
And no, I don't think that they were over unity by more than an order of 
magnitude-  Only a factor of perhaps 6. I need to go back and check that. 

 D2
From: mgi...@gibbs.com
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 12:55:19 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the 
propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made 
irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other 
words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't 
have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still 
validate the claim of significant over unity energy output.


[mg]
  

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Gibbs  wrote:

Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the
> propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made
> irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated?
>

Yes. But power, not energy. If the difference between input and output had
been small, than it might have been an error (with zero real excess power)
which over a long time adds up to a large amount of bogus excess energy.

The difference between 300 W and 900 W is so large that any reasonable
method of measuring it, when performed by experts, is irrefutable. This
method is good because it is simple, employing only a watt meter, an IR
camera, a thermocouple, and a calibration of a blank cell. Skeptics have
not found a plausible error. They never will. There are no plausible
errors, unless you want to toss out the Stefan-Boltzmann law. (Yugo said it
is "too complicated.") There is only the remote possibility that Rossi has
discovered a way to fool a commercial off-the-shelf watt meter.


In other words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output
> couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which
> would still validate the claim of significant over unity energy output.
>

Right. But, as I said, that is because the instantaneous power is
high. Also because all measurements are conservative. In every case in
which there is a choice of methods, one which would underestimate power and
another that might overestimate it, they chose the method which
underestimates. The actual power must be considerably higher. It cannot be
lower. Not if you believe elementary concepts such as the fact that a
cylinder viewed from the side is not a flat surface.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "DJ Cravens" 
> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 1:22:05 PM

> And no, I don't think that they were over unity by more than an order
> of magnitude- Only a factor of perhaps 6. I need to go back and
> check that.

The COP was 6 (Dec) and 3 (March).

The order of magnitude was energy density over chemistry, making the most 
conservative estimate -- eg using the entire weight or volume of the inner 
cylinder, rather than just the pixie dust. 

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[DJ Cravens]

bob park
 
> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:16:16 -0700
> From: a...@well.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
> 
> > Unfortunately, I think that the person who made the "cup of tea" bet
> > has passed on.
> > (My forgetory will produce his name in about 10 minutes while I'm
> > doing something else)
> 
> It wasn't tea .. it was a bet by a professor that would be paid off when a 
> cold fusion device delivered 1 kWh to the grid, or was available at the local 
> hardware store.
> 
> His name STILL eludes me !!!
> 
  

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Axil Axil]

 You do not yet appreciate this yet, but a knew field of science that is
interested in the theory of quantum computers, atomic imaging, and
invisibility clocks are developing the theory that also covers LENR. In
this way, every day a half dozen papers are written advancing LENR theory.


This theory is not easy to understand and is far removed from common sense.
It is on the difficulty level with General Relativity in both conceptual
difficulty and theoretical calculation.

But It is only a matter of time before somebody connects the two ways of
thinking together; one way accepted by science and the other way only
associated with a religious like belief in weird experimental results.


This time of this fusion is growing near.


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
> How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the
>> finding?  It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be
>> hundreds or thousands.
>>
>
> I think for most claims it used to be five or 10 good replications. It
> depends on many factors such as the signal-to-noise ratio, the complexity
> of the instruments, the extent to which the results call for new and
> difficult techniques, and so on. It was difficult to believe polywater
> claims because in every case the instruments were operating at the extreme
> limits of their capabilities. It is much easier to believe the claim that a
> mammal has been cloned because you can look at the baby and see it is a
> twin of the parent, and you can test the DNA.
>
> In the case of cold fusion, the experiment is very difficult to replicate,
> but the results are easy to understand. The first tier of people to
> replicate were the crème de la crème of electrochemistry. I mean people who
> now have laboratories named after them such as Ernest Yeager, and people
> who should have laboratories named after them such as John Bockris. Also
> Miles, Mizuno, McKubre, Kunimatsu, Appleby, Will, Okamoto, Huggins and so
> on.
>
> The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of
> electrochemistry. Just about every top electrochemist in the world
> replicated within a year or so. They were all certain the results were
> real. Anyone who does not believe that kind of thing, from this kind of
> people, does not understand experimental science.
>
> Over in the Forbes comment section Gibbs referred to these people as "the
> LENR community." It would be more accurate to call them "every major
> academic electrochemist on earth." That puts it in a different perspective.
>
> The problem with skeptics is not that they don't believe these results. Or
> that they have found problems with the results. The problem is they have
> zero knowledge of this subject. They have never read any papers and they
> never heard of Yeager or Will or anyone else. They think there are no
> papers! They would not know a flow calorimeter if it bit them on the butt.
> People who are completely ignorant of a subject have no right to any
> opinion about it.
>
> A few skeptics such as Cude have looked at results, but they have strange
> notions about them. Cude thinks these graphs show only random results with
> no meaning or pattern:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg
>
> This is sort of the opposite of a Rorschach test. Cude looks at an ordered
> set of data that constitutes irrefutable proof of a control parameter, but
> he sees only random noise.
>
>
>
>>  Kevin:   Most people still assume it's wrong.

>>>
>>> Jed: Those people are irrational. You should discount their views.
>>>
>> ***Unfortunately, that includes the great majority of people.   I would
>> guess that 95% of the population (who had an opinion) thought the Wright
>> brothers were frauds until they finally had some money on the table & IP
>> protection . . .
>>
>
> That is true, but that is human nature. The Wright brothers and others
> managed to succeed despite these problems, so perhaps we will succeed now.
> The world has not grown more irrational.
>
>
>
>> Perhaps 90% of people who have an opinion on LENR think it's a
>> pathological science, on the same level as flat earthers, unicorn admirers,
>> and perpetual motion devices.
>>
>>>
> That may be true, although you would have to conduct a public opinion
> survey to confirm it. However, such opinions are not based on knowledge or
> rationality so we cannot change them. There is no point to worrying about
> them. We should concentrate on people such as the readers at LENR-CANR.org.
> We should ignore people who will not do their homework.
>
> We only need a small number of supporters to win this fight. The thing is,
> we need people who have lots of money. Barrels of money. And guts. If we
> could win over Bill Gates I would not care if anyone else in the world
> believes the results. He alone would be enough.
>
> I do 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

DJ Cravens  wrote:


> yes, calorimetry is not needed IF you believe the claims, methods, and the
> effect.  As you may know, I don't doubt the reality of CF/LENR in general.
> However, if you goal is to convince "non-believer" then it is best to avoid
> systems where you have to know the exact waveforms, cables, instruments,
> material emissivity's,.
>

You do not need to know the exact waveforms. I can tell by looking that the
power is off most of the time. Whether it is off 50% or 70% of the time
makes no difference. You do not need to know the exact emissivity. You can
assume the reactor is a black box, with the IR camera parameter set to 1,
while you can ignore the thermocouple reading. You still get overwhelming
excess power.

The whole point of this method is that it requires no exact measurements
although they did in fact make exact measurements. If this does not
convince a nonbeliever that person does not understand elementary 19th
century physics.

Flow calorimetry has much to be said for it but it is more complicated and
less believable than this. A lot more can go wrong with it, and usually
does go wrong with it for the first several weeks.



>   you name it. Perhaps the reaction is controllable, perhaps not.
>

Since the cell melted the reaction is obviously not well controlled.



> Again, from my vantage point, the best demo would be a stand alone that
> does not require any calculations or understanding of how a specific
> instrument work or was used. That  should become possible somewhere around
> a COP of 5 to 10.  Until then there will be doubts.
>

But these doubts are not rational. People who continue to have doubts with
this test will have doubts with any other test including a standalone
self-sustaining demonstration.

- Jed

[Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT

[a.ashfield]

Having tried to edit something on the wiki E-CAT page and having it 
immediately deleted, I ended up writing this on the "Topic Talk" page. 
It probably won't do any good but if enough people do this (anyone can) 
  They say there are 1000- 7000 hits per day on the E-CAT page.


This discussion page rambles to the point it is difficult to follow. 
There are two main points that are clearly wrong.


1, The statement that no independent test has been carried out. You 
can't prove a negative and so can't possibly know that. In fact an 
independent test has been carried out. The paper is available for 
viewing or downloading at arXiv:1305,3903 It was paid for and commented 
about by Elforsk on their official site. Elforsk is a large, well known 
R&D organization, equivalent to EPRI. It can't get much more official 
than that.


It doesn't matter that it has not been peer reviewed yet, or that some 
don't like the experimental procedure. An independent test HAS been run. 
There are various secondary sources of confirmation mentioned, such as 
Gibbs in Forbes magazine. I expect that several other tests have been 
run by large organizations doing their due diligence.


2. The comment on an independent test is followed by a very negative 
commentary taken from a blog site run by Ugo Bardi. The comments to his 
post were uniformly negative. Mine was censored. What is the 
justification for this? I can point to several other blogs run by 
scientists, including a Nobel Prize winner and a Chief Scientist at 
NASA, that come to the opposite conclusion.


One can only conclude that there are several editors on this topic that 
are so convinced that LENR is impossible that they favor anything 
negative about it. For example, the selective quote from Elforsk given. 
The full quote is shown below. (Google translation)


Swedish researchers have tested Rossi energy catalyst - E-cat

"Researchers from Uppsala University and KTH Stockholm has conducted 
measurements of the produced heat energy from a device called the E-cat. 
It is known as an energy catalyst invented by the Italian scientist 
Andrea Rossi.


The measurements show that the catalyst gives substantially more energy 
than can be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. The results are 
very remarkable. What lies behind the extraordinary heat production can 
not be explained today. There has been speculation over whether there 
can be any form of nuclear transformation. However, this is highly 
questionable. To learn more about what is going on you have to learn 
what is happening with the fuel and the waste it produces. The 
measurements have been funded by such Elforsk."


For those the prefer peer reviewed papers, there are several hundred 
listed that confirm LENR here. lenr-canr.org


Rossi forecast at the beginning that nothing would convince the skeptics 
until working E-CATs were out in the market and he was right. I wonder 
what you will say when Defkalion demonstrate their Hyperion at the 
National Instruments Week in August.


LENR has now been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This negatively 
biased wiki entry on the E-CAT is doing a great disservice to thousands 
of viewers.

Re: [Vo]:OT: scrabble challenge

[Alain Sepeda]

the position of nassim nicholas taleb, is that what prevent innovation is
planning the result.

take good option, with cheap failure and rare huge success, and when it
produce the unexpected, try to adapt to what you have, and not to make it
fit in your plan.

intelligence is not in the intelligence of the searcher, but in many cheap
trial and error, not risky, and detecting the sucess and taking advantage
of it...

less planing, more prudence to avoid unexpected bad, more dare to try
unexpected good, and enjoy the unexepected.


2013/6/3 Harry Veeder 

> A Whack on the Side of the Head:
> How to Unlock Your Mind for Innovation
> by Roger van Oech
>
> book review
> http://www.creating.bz/our-reading-circle/whack.html
> Oech identifies ten mental blocks which limit creativity:
>
> The Right Answer
>
> That's Not Logical
>
> Follow the Rules
>
> Be Practical
>
> Play Is Frivolous
>
> That's Not My Area
>
> Avoid Ambiguity
>
> Don't Be Foolish
>
> To Err Is Wrong
>
> I'm Not Creative
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Brad Lowe  wrote:
>
>> French and Flench  are
>> the longest valid scrabble words.
>>
>> But I missed the point...
>> - Brad
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>>> With the seven letters LENR CF H make a word.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT

[Berke Durak]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:31 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
> Having tried to edit something on the wiki E-CAT page and having it
> immediately deleted, I ended up writing this on the "Topic Talk" page. It
> probably won't do any good but if enough people do this (anyone can) 
> They say there are 1000- 7000 hits per day on the E-CAT page.

Just a quick semi-relevant comment.  There is a LENR group on Reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/lenr and Reddit provides a Wiki facility for
subreddits (= Reddit groups). I don't know how sympathethic the owners
of that subreddit (e.g. the LENR subreddit moderators) are to the
cause, but you can create your own subreddit and edit its Wiki as you
see fit.

I have used Reddit's Wiki facilities and while they are not as
extensive as those of Wikipedia they are good enough.

Reddit is also very good for having discussions thanks to its voting
system that keeps trolls and spammers at bay while still giving
everyone a chance to voice their opinion (using a combination of
throttling and votes.)  It also allows anonymous discussion which is
good for controversial, career-endangering fields such as LENR.

I love the mailing list format as its dependence on third-party
infrastructure is minimal and replaceable but it's a bit too easy for
opponents to flood and derail discussions.
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

DJ Cravens  wrote:

Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed.   Just heating a
> container of water - pool, spa, teapot
>

I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get
an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you
would maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks.
The body (the bath and its container) would be losing heat into the
surroundings. It amounts to more or less the same thing they are doing now,
with a bigger body and more thermal mass, plus evaporation and other
complicated stuff. I do not see an advantage.

A spa or a pond is not a simple thing to model.


   You do not need to measure flow rates if the effect is significant.
>

You don't need to measure it now. You have to depend on Drs. Stefan and
Boltzmann being right. As for convection, you just gotta look up the
numbers in an HVAC textbook.


It avoids all the % steam questions, the emissivity numbers, the air flow,
> the cameras..
>

It does not avoid the steam question! On the contrary, with a body water
you are right back to that problem, with evaporation. There are no serious
questions about emissivity, air flow, or cameras. The emissivity can be set
to 1 (worst case). The air flow comes out of an engineering textbook. We
know the camera and emissivity are right because the thermocouple confirms
them. All questions are addressed and all are closed.


It is about the simplest measure of heat.
>

The present method is the simplest. Using a body of hot water heated to
terminal temperature would be more complicated.

The present method is not the most accurate but I doubt that a large body
of water would be more accurate.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the 
loop.  Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 4:20 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



 
 
The reputed gain is sohigh – Rossi would be wise to forego calorimetry and go 
directly toconversion of heat to electricity.
 
Here is the device thatcould do that – ORC in a small format. This device is 
perfect for theHotCat.
 
http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/IT10_ORC_System.html
 
At 6:1 gain, Rossi shouldbe able to close the loop.
 
 

From:mark.gi...@gmail.com 

 

Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that'sthe one with the 
propeller on top) isn't the argument about the needfor calorimetry made 
irrelevant the amount of energy observed to havebeen generated? In other words, 
even with more precise measurements the exactenergy output couldn't have been 
something more than an order of magnitudelower which would still validate the 
claim of significant over unity energyoutput.

 

[mg]


 

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
R. W. Emerson wrote:


 


 
  
  
  
"Whatever course you decide upon, there is  always someone to tell you that you 
are wrong. There are always difficulties  arising which tempt you to believe 
that your critics are right. To map out a  course of action and follow it to an 
end requires courage..Do not go  where ever the path leads but go where 
there is none and leave a trail.  Ralph Waldo Emerson 
  
  
 



 


Fine except for the last sentence. Please do not selecta method of calorimetry 
where is no path! Select a conventional method.The most boring method you can 
find, with off-the-shelf instruments andtextbook techniques that no HVAC 
engineer would quarrel with.

 

Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proofyou can come up with.

 

- Jed

 


 

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[DJ Cravens]

That is not what I want to hear. that is what I am working toward.
standalone and a cup of tea for NI  I doubt I will have it by then just a 
small 1:3 if I am lucky.  But if I can encourage one person to do experiments,
I will be happy and can crawl back under my rock.
 
But perhaps Defkalion will be blowing steam.  Who knows?
The last I heard Brillion was around 2:1 in liquid.
 
Perhaps it is time to step aside and let the commercial people do their thing.
 
 
D2

 
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:30:43 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
...

But these doubts are not rational. People who continue to have doubts with this 
test will have doubts with any other test including a standalone 
self-sustaining demonstration. 

- Jed
  

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


>You do not need to measure flow rates if the effect is significant.
>>
>
> You don't need to measure it now. You have to depend on Drs. Stefan and
> Boltzmann being right. As for convection, you just gotta look up the
> numbers in an HVAC textbook.
>

I confused the issue a little here.

Dennis meant that you do not need to measure the inlet and outlet
temperatures to conduct flow calorimetry. You can simply circulate all the
water from a large body like a bath, going from bath to cell, and splosh
back into the bath. You then observe the terminal temperature of the bath,
comparing it to another bath with another heater. It is a giant
isoperibolic calorimeter at a moderate temperature. (Whereas the present
arrangement is a small, hot isoperibolic calorimeter.)

I meant that you do not need to worry about flow rates with the present
method. There is no flow involved. I also meant that you do not need to
worry about the airflow cooling the cell because you can look it up in a
book. Granted, it is not very accurate but HVAC engineers have been doing
this sort of thing for a long time, so it is reliable.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT

[a.ashfield]

Berke Durak,
My interest was to get Wiki to correct their entry.  Not clear to me how 
Reddit can help that.

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[DJ Cravens]

You may want to refigure that if you want to run for extended times- an Olympic 
pool (likely overkill) has a volume of 2.5 million liters and some are indoors 
and have covers.  ( I would just use bubble wrap) You could easily go long 
enough to be an order of mag or two above chemical. 
 
The advantage is if they are truly at > 3:1 then you only need to measure 1 
time and 1 temp for the output.  That is a lot fewer items. And indoor heated 
pools could give you a good control measure. 

 But it really doesn't matter, they will do what they do. They only need to 
make their sponsors happy not Crude.   I hope the best for them. 
 
D2
 
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:46:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

DJ Cravens  wrote:




Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed.   Just heating a container of 
water - pool, spa, teapot
I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get an 
interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you would 
maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks. The body 
(the bath and its container) would be losing heat into the surroundings. It 
amounts to more or less the same thing they are doing now, with a bigger body 
and more thermal mass, plus evaporation and other complicated stuff. I do not 
see an advantage.
  

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

DJ Cravens  wrote:

That is not what I want to hear.
>

You do not want to hear that the cell will go out of control and melt? It
will though, whether you want to hear that or not. It has already melted.

I do not understand what you have in mind here. Nature allows us to do some
things and not others. We have to work with what nature allows, not what we
would wish for in an ideal universe.

As long as we are wishing, I wish there was a form of cold fusion that
directly produced electricity. That would sure be convenient! Now tell me:
what was the point of my wishful thinking? What purpose does it serve, to
wish for things we cannot have?

Obviously with more engineering R&D a self-sustaining Rossi reactor could
be made. This is just a matter of engineering. It would cost a great deal
of money and time. It would be a distraction. It would not prove anything
the present test does not prove. Mary Yugo would insist it is fake. Robert
Park would ignore it. Why bother? Just use a different watt meter next time
and all remaining questions vanish as surely as they would with a
self-sustaining reactor.



> that is what I am working toward.
> standalone and a cup of tea for NI
>

A standalone cup of tea would be marvelous, but far less convincing than
the test conducted by Levi et al. it would also be much convincing proof
that the effect can be made into a practical source of energy.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

DJ Cravens  wrote:

You may want to refigure that if you want to run for extended times- an
> Olympic pool (likely overkill) has a volume of 2.5 million liters and some
> are indoors and have covers.
>

That would be extremely noisy, to say the least. Changes in air
temperature, humidity, sunlight, hours of day and other factors would swamp
the effects of a 900 W heater. That is like having 2 people swimming in the
pool. * I doubt you could detect the heat from that.

- Jed


* Swimming the breaststroke takes 475 W according to this source:

http://cnx.org/content/m42153/latest/?collection=col11406/latest

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Dennis,

The best proof is one that has the least possibility of error.  Every 
complication that is added to the setup results in many more issues to question 
by the skeptics.  The technique used by the testers of the ECAT is good enough 
for any reasonable scientist to accept and all this non sense we are hearing 
from the skeptics is ridiculous.

You fail to realize that there is no way what so ever to meet their 
requirements since they do not believe LENR is possible.  Any test results will 
be found lacking by their measures.  The more complicated the test setup is, 
the more ways that they will suggest a scam is possible.

The latest report has been shown to be solid from a normal technical point of 
view.  For this reason, the skeptics now insist that a scam must be the answer. 
 They have failed to prove their position entirely, and most normal skeptics 
would realize that perhaps they were wrong in the beliefs.  Not this group.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: DJ Cravens 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 5:03 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



You may want to refigure that if you want to run for extended times- an Olympic 
pool (likely overkill) has a volume of 2.5 million liters and some are indoors 
and have covers.  ( I would just use bubble wrap) You could easily go long 
enough to be an order of mag or two above chemical. 
 
The advantage is if they are truly at > 3:1 then you only need to measure 1 
time and 1 temp for the output.  That is a lot fewer items. And indoor heated 
pools could give you a good control measure. 

 But it really doesn't matter, they will do what they do. They only need to 
make their sponsors happy not Crude.   I hope the best for them. 
 
D2
 


Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:46:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

DJ Cravens  wrote:



Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed.   Just heating a container of 
water - pool, spa, teapot



I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get an 
interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you would 
maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks. The body 
(the bath and its container) would be losing heat into the surroundings. It 
amounts to more or less the same thing they are doing now, with a bigger body 
and more thermal mass, plus evaporation and other complicated stuff. I do not 
see an advantage.
 

  

[Vo]:What if Neutrinos don't really exist?

[Leonard Arbuthnot]

What if Neutrinos don't really exist?

I've always felt uncomforatble about the "discovery" of the Neutrino (or rather 
the 3 neutrino siblings - as they currently are).  The particles seem to fulfil 
most (if not all) of the criteria for being products of "pathological science".

On one hand they are barely detectable, and yet on the other hand their effects 
are claimed to be measurable with great accuracy.  The earth is meant to be 
swamped by a sea of interstellar neutrinos, and yet a detector in an 
underground chamber can supposedly pick up neutrino signals from an accelerator 
450 miles away - all with split second timing.  It all sounds a little bit like 
N Rays.


So - what if they have never really existed? What if the original postulation - 
Pauli's "invented particle" to make an equation balance - was a mistake?  Maybe 
with all the various particles discovered (and strongly observed) since the 
middle of last century, it could be possible to make the equations balance in 
some other way.

After all, we do need a way to "uninvent" particles - especially those at the 
limit of detection - when subsequent discoveries show that past measurements 
were in error (i.e. originally encouraged by the effect of "seeing what we 
expect to see").

However, has any particle ever been dispensed with?

Thoughts?

Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT

[Berke Durak]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:57 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
> Berke Durak,
> My interest was to get Wiki to correct their entry.  Not clear to me how
> Reddit can help that.

The idea is that pro-LENR people could collaboratively work on a wiki
where they have editorial control, whose contents would compete with
Wikipedia on search engine results, eventually forcing Wikipedia (and
society) to be more willing to accept the relevant information.
Unlike other wikis, the Reddit wikis are tightly coupled with the rest
of the subreddit where discussions and link-sharing can take place.
It would thus be more community-forming, and its exposure to the
younger generation is high.  Edits on Wikipedia proper could also be
coordinated from there.

-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the
> loop.  Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job.
>

Correctomundo. This will complicate matters. It probably means they need
batteries and inverters. As sure as day follows night, the skeptics will
say these inverters and batteries are fake, unnecessarily complicated, and
they are only there to hide fraud.

There was a time when this field desperately needed a standalone self
powered reactor to prove the reaction is real. That is because absolute
power was low, ranging from 5 to 100 W. However, now that Rossi has
developed high-powered reactors ranging from 500 to . . . 1 MW (I guess?)
the need for standalone reactors is reduced. High-power plus a large input
to output ratio together prove nearly everything that a smaller
self-sustaining reaction would prove. They make it obvious that with enough
engineering R&D a self-sustaining reactor can be made.

The only way these results could be wrong would be if Rossi has somehow
found a way to fool a watt meter. If he is capable of doing that he is also
capable of making something that looks like a self-sustaining demonstration
but is not.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Mark Gibbs]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:22 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:

> yes, calorimetry is not needed IF you believe the claims, methods, and the
> effect.
>

The claims are that the device produces significantly over unity, the
methods have been alluded to but Rossi is definitely not public with this
and he may well be lying (e.g. there may be no catalyst). The effect seems
to have been demonstrated by the tests.


> As you may know, I don't doubt the reality of CF/LENR in general.
> However, if you goal is to convince "non-believer" then it is best to avoid
> systems where you have to know the exact waveforms, cables, instruments,
> material emissivity's,.  you name it. Perhaps the reaction is
> controllable, perhaps not.  Perhaps the reproducibility between samples is
> solved, perhaps not.
>

Ah, now we have it ... it's the questions of reproducability and
controlability,

>
> Heating a pot/container of water from a standalone unit is the way to go
>  in my humble opinion.
>

Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy without
stopping would be pretty damn convincing.

[mg]

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Gibbs  wrote:


> Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy
> without stopping would be pretty damn convincing.
>

Not really. The skeptics would come up with a hundred reasons why that was
faked. They would say this was actually two identical electric vehicles,
which were swapped out from time to time while passing through
tunnels. They will say the video record was faked.

The claim here is excess heat from a device with AC electric power input.
The best way to measure that is by using standard engineering methods for
measuring electricity and heat from HVAC systems. The best people to do
that are engineers. The best organization to evaluate such results -- best
by far -- is a place like Elforsk or EPRI. Not the APS or the American
Astronomical Society.

People who demand a stand alone, self powered reaction should pay for it. I
expect it would cost millions to make one that is safe.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Gibbs  wrote:

Ah, now we have it ... it's the questions of reproducability and
> controlability,
>

But these questions have no bearing on whether the effect is real or not.

During the Vanguard era of US rocket development in the 1950s, rockets were
extremely difficult to reproduce and they were so badly controlled most of
them exploded. However, no one suggested that rockets do not exist.

Reproducibility and controllability have ZERO, ZIP, NO relevance to whether
the effect is real or not. They only determine whether its commercially
useful, or cost-effective. Rockets are not still not well controlled. They
often explode, so the insurance rates are high. You pay extra on your
satellite TV bill to cover this. Some types of semiconductors in the 1950s
had low reproducibility rates which meant they remained more expensive than
vacuum tubes for several years.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:



> Unfortunately, I think that the person who made the "cup of tea" bet has 
> passed on.

Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his tea.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:


> Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his
> tea.
>

I'm hoping we can do something more dramatic, on a larger scale. Something
like what the Japanese authorities did to the notorious criminal Ishikawa
Goemon in 1594 would be ideal, but I guess that's out.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishikawa_Goemon

They still call old fashioned iron cauldron baths "Goemon" baths in his
honor:

http://dolphin2510.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-japanese-used-to-take-bath-goemon.html

This says they "used to take a bath" this way. Ahem. Some of us still do.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jones Beene]

Dave,

 

It would be nice to get Infinity Turbine to donate a few weeks of testing time 
on their ORC device which had been modified with a DC generator driving a bank 
of Ultracaps. 

 

The caps would be sized so that there is maybe 15 minutes of cushion in the 
energy storage – but no batteries. Cree makes a 3-phase inverter that is 95+% 
efficient from DC. With this kind of setup the penalty for both storage and 
DC/AC conversions would be low – less than 10%.

 

With 6:1 gain and 21% OTC efficiency at 600C, there could be just enough to 
close the loop.

 

Jones

 

Here is the Cree demo of high efficiency DC/DC. As I understand it, DC/AC is at 
least this good or better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8F4s86d7PY

 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the 
loop.  Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job.

 

From: Jones Beene  

The reputed gain is so high – Rossi would be wise to forego calorimetry and go 
directly to conversion of heat to electricity.

 

Here is the device that could do that – ORC in a small format. This device is 
perfect for the HotCat.

 

http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/IT10_ORC_System.html

 

At 6:1 gain, Rossi should be able to close the loop.

 

 

From: mark.gi...@gmail.com 

 

Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the 
propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made 
irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other 
words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't 
have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still 
validate the claim of significant over unity energy output.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> It would be nice to get Infinity Turbine to donate a few weeks of testing
> time on their ORC device which had been modified with a DC generator
> driving a bank of Ultracaps.
>

This would be nice. It would be a lot of fun. I personally would feel
gratified and pleased to see this. However, it would not convince a single
skeptic. They would simply say that all this equipment is fake or there is
a hidden wire or some other trick.

Frankly I don't see what purpose this test would serve at this stage in the
development. Can you tell us what this would show that the present tests do
not? Would this raise your confidence in the results? If so, why? If you
suspect Rossi might be sneaking power in through the AC lines, surely it
would be easier to address this with something like a battery backup, a
generator, or a better watt meter.

I think this would be a distraction and a waste of money.

The skeptics would also say that any test conducted in Rossi's presence or
in his laboratory cannot be fully convincing. There is something be said
for that. I would prefer to see the gadget tested in an independent
laboratory. Heck I would prefer to see 10,000 copies of this device being
tested in laboratories all over the world.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jones Beene]

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

This would be nice. It would be a lot of fun. I personally would feel
gratified and pleased to see this. However, it would not convince a single
skeptic. They would simply say that all this equipment is fake or there is a
hidden wire or some other trick.

 

Frankly I don't see what purpose this test would serve at this stage in the
development. Can you tell us what this would show that the present tests do
not? 

 

Yes, self-power would convince many skeptics but not all - since the ways to
cheat have been minimized. Actually self-powering with an ORC genset and a
HotCat would probably convince a majority of present skeptics - all but the
Cude crowd.

 

And yes, there is a significant qualitative difference between COP of 6 and
COP of 2.5 in terms of market value. The HotCat could be on either end of
that spectrum, based on what the last report indicated. 

 

If the device cannot self-power, it is still valuable with a lower COP, the
proverbial hot water or space heater - but if it can self-power now, it
becomes an immediate TDI - Trillion Dollar Invention in the eyes many top
investors.

 

That is the purpose of going for it now. 

 

How much capital does Rossi need to fast tract it, or stated another way -
does a 63 year old inventor want to see his baby fully developed in the
marketplace during in his lifetime - or not?

 

Of course, the device under test would not be optimized at this stage, even
if it self-powers, so we would need to extrapolate - but closing the loop or
even getting close - would bring Rossi massive investment capital. 

 

But with a COP on the lower end, he probably is stuck with whatever
AmpEnergo can scrape up.

 

Jones

 

 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I'm hoping we can do something more dramatic, on a larger scale. Something
> like what the Japanese authorities did to the notorious criminal Ishikawa
> Goemon in 1594 would be ideal, but I guess that's out.

Raising the temperature a little bit at a time . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

:)

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Mark Gibbs]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Mark Gibbs  wrote:
>
> Ah, now we have it ... it's the questions of reproducability and
>> controlability,
>>
>
> But these questions have no bearing on whether the effect is real or not.
>
> We're talking about Rossi's device and whether it works, not whether
CF/LENR/LENR+/Pixie-Mediated-Power/Whatever is real.

If Rossi can make devices that demonstrably and reliably work and don't
blow up, he proves the E-Cat is real. If they reliably blow up, he's in the
armaments business.

[mg]

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

> If Rossi can make devices that demonstrably and reliably work and don't blow
> up, he proves the E-Cat is real. If they reliably blow up, he's in the
> armaments business.

LOL!  Proving the reaction to be HIGHLY OVER UNITY!

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
>  . The world has not grown more irrational.
>
***I have no proof, but on this point I simply beg to differ.

>
>
> We only need a small number of supporters to win this fight. The thing is,
> we need people who have lots of money. Barrels of money. And guts.
>
***On one of these LENR websites, when Obama won the first election, the
owner  posted an open letter to him saying that this would be the right
thing to do.  With the sequester engaged, Obama has been selectively
cutting certain fed programs.  The hot-fusion program is a huge,
low-hanging fruit as far as I can see.  If LENR got only 5% of those funds,
we'd have LENR jet packs by now (well, maybe LENR cars).  And Obama hates
the military, so he should relish bonking a bunch of nuclear weapons guys
on the head.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Mark,

It might take a little time for Rossi to gain total control over his device.  
How would you like to have been the pilot of the first plane built by the 
Wright brothers?  I have little doubt that great progress will be achieved over 
the next couple of years with Rossi's device and derivatives of it.  Patience 
is good.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Mark Gibbs 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 7:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


Mark Gibbs  wrote:





Ah, now we have it ... it's the questions of reproducability and 
controlability,  





But these questions have no bearing on whether the effect is real or not.




We're talking about Rossi's device and whether it works, not whether 
CF/LENR/LENR+/Pixie-Mediated-Power/Whatever is real. 


If Rossi can make devices that demonstrably and reliably work and don't blow 
up, he proves the E-Cat is real. If they reliably blow up, he's in the 
armaments business.


[mg]

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Gibbs  wrote:


> We're talking about Rossi's device and whether it works, not whether
> CF/LENR/LENR+/Pixie-Mediated-Power/Whatever is real.
>

If it is real it is the most important advance in technology since the
discovery of fire. If the scientific community is convinced it is real,
every industrial corporation and university will be hard at work on this.
~$100 million per day will devoted to it.


If Rossi can make devices that demonstrably and reliably work and don't
> blow up, he proves the E-Cat is real. If they reliably blow up, he's in the
> armaments business.
>

It makes no difference whether Rossi can do this or not. I am sure that
someone can, because stable reactions have been demonstrated by
Fleischmann, Mizuno, Rossi and others. If it can be done once, in one lab,
then with enough funding and effort we can make it happen on demand a
billion times a day.

All he has to do is convince people it is real. The floodgates will open,
and problems like these will be solved overnight. If he has any viable IP
he will be richer than Bill Gates in a few years.

By the way, regarding armaments, some experts, including Teller and
Fleischmann, worried cold fusion might make a cheap, compact nuclear bomb.
Even if it cannot cause a nuclear explosion, there is no doubt it will
revolutionize every weapon and military system, as I described in my book.
Every existing weapon will be as obsolete as wooden ships were after the
battle between the Monitor and the Merrimack in 1862.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> And yes, there is a significant qualitative difference between COP of 6
> and COP of 2.5 in terms of market value. The HotCat could be on either end
> of that spectrum, based on what the last report indicated.
>

I am certain that you can have any COP you want with cold fusion. It is
just a matter of engineering. The present limitations have no bearing on
the potential, any more than 35 mph top speed of the 1905 Wright Flyer III
limited the future speed of airplanes.

Rossi accidentally achieved an infinite COP when his reactor melted.
Several other reactors have melted, exploded or vaporized.

All discussions of the COP and all concerns about it are bogus. This is
simply not an issue now, and it never has been.



> If the device cannot self-power . . .
>

I am certain it can. There is no reason to doubt that. The hard part is to
make it stop self-powering before it melts.



> But with a COP on the lower end, he probably is stuck with whatever
> AmpEnergo can scrape up.
>

If the industrialist and venture capitalists come to believe the Levi
report, Rossi will be offered billions of dollars. The COP does not make
the slightest difference.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:


> It might take a little time for Rossi to gain total control over his
> device.  How would you like to have been the pilot of the first plane built
> by the Wright brothers?
>

As I recall the Wrights trained 12 pilots in 1908, and 10 were killed
within a year. Their first major celebrity customer was Charles Rolls of
Rolls-Royce. He was killed in 1910 when the tail of the machine broke off.

For all anyone knows, Rossi might be running similar risks today.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT

[Jouni Valkonen]

On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:31 PM, "a.ashfield"  wrote:
> In fact an independent test has been carried out.

This is not true. The test was arranged in Rossi's facilities and by Giuseppe 
Levi. And problem is that we do not know what is financial relationship between 
Rossi and Levi, so Levi, who has been chief scientist in all ecat tests, cannot 
be considered as independent entity.

Therefore it is factually correct to state that there has not been arranged 
independent test.

My personal opinion is that that Levi must be also key player in ecat scam. If 
Levi is honest, I do not think that it is possible for Rossi to fool him so 
many times and Levi not requiring more careful measurements.

And since there is no radiation, I do not see that it is plausible have claimed 
levels of excess heat. Also Rossi lost his final bits of credibility forever 
when he childishly threatened Wikipedia with lawsuit. Only lunatics behave such 
a way and this is very common pattern for conspiratorial trolls to react when 
forum moderators do not listen them.

―Jouni

[Vo]:OFF TOPIC Onze helden zijn terug! (Our heroes are back!)

[Jed Rothwell]

See a flash mob performance celebrating the reopening of the Rijksmuseum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a6W2ZMpsxhg

This kind of thing is new to the world, thanks to video and YouTube. It is
a 21st Century performance. I like it!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jouni Valkonen]

On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:
> Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat

Presenting skepticism is very healthy.

However convincing proof, if that is desired, is just that ecat is made to do 
real work while it is completely unplugged. Simplest real work could be heating 
a pool of water. Even short heat after death event is convincing if hidden 
power sources are carefully searched.

But Rossi has refused to unplug the device after December 2010 test that was 
conducted by Levi privately (IIRC). December 2010 test is still the most 
convincing test, but it again does require that Levi is genuinely independent 
scientist and he is not paid by Rossi.

―Jouni