Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
Accoriding Steven Krivit (#3 report and some earlier writing), Daniele was also present at 18 hour test (i have not seen other sources). Therefore he is within the greates fraud of cold fusion or tells truth that world is saved, because he knows with certainty whether E-Cat is for real or a hoax. I guess that indeed he is right, because impact will enormous, both mental and economical. Not least because people ask why this was not 'discovered' earlier? Why we have poured so many gigadollars and several kiloscientists to ridiculous hot fusion research what is at it's best something that we definetely do not want (expensive and polluting). —Jouni
[Vo]:Sun-free photovoltaics and Second Law of Thermodynamics
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/sun-free-photovoltaics-0728.html What happens when the PV have same temparature of the thermal emmiters? BTW, can be used with e-cat.
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Accoriding Steven Krivit (#3 report and some earlier writing), Daniele was also present at 18 hour test (i have not seen other sources). Indeed he was; and, Daniele has more insider knowledge than Krivit since Daniele has known Levi for decades. T
Re: [Vo]:Sun-free photovoltaics and Second Law of Thermodynamics
Hamdi! Good to hear from you again! Terry On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Hamdi Ucar u...@verisoft.com wrote: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/sun-free-photovoltaics-0728.html What happens when the PV have same temparature of the thermal emmiters? BTW, can be used with e-cat.
Re: [Vo]:Sun-free photovoltaics and Second Law of Thermodynamics
I didn't see any mention of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the article from MIT.. would've been nice On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Hamdi! Good to hear from you again! Terry On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Hamdi Ucar u...@verisoft.com wrote: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/sun-free-photovoltaics-0728.html What happens when the PV have same temparature of the thermal emmiters? BTW, can be used with e-cat.
[Vo]:Millennium Falcon or Odd Sea Floor Formation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2021174/Have-scientists-crashed-flying-saucer-seabed.html#ixzz1Torn51mJ The wreck files: Have scientists found a crashed flying saucer on the seabed? Unidentified object is sitting on the ocean floor between Sweden and Finland By DANIEL BATES Last updated at 7:38 AM on 2nd August 2011 A mysterious circle on a grainy scan, this is what scientists are claiming is finally evidence that Earth has been visited by aliens. Researchers have claimed the fuzzy outline is a flying saucer that ended up 300ft down on the ocean floor between Sweden and Finland. They were stunned when sonar scans taken while searching for a century-old wreck showed up the shape against the dirt. more
Re: [Vo]:Millennium Falcon or Odd Sea Floor Formation
They were searching for champagne: http://www.oceanexplorer.se/index.html T
Re: [Vo]:Millennium Falcon or Odd Sea Floor Formation
Thanks for bringing this bizarre off-the-wall article to our attention. ;-) A few comments from the peanut gallery: ... Now, however, his team do not have the money or resources to examine the shape further. Hopefully, someone with a little spare cash will come forth soon... No venture, no gain. Think of the bragging rights! ... Experts have also pointed out that even the idea of a flying saucer as a round object might be wrong - the first sighting of such a craft later turned out to be a reporting error. What a blithering idiotic proclamation to make at the end of an article. In reference to what ...first sighting. It means absolutely nothing! Regards Great kid. Don't get cocky Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Fw: Krivit Snarks
At 05:19 PM 8/1/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: I have not had a chance to read the Krivit newsletter yet, but I agree with Fletcher's comments here. He wrote: Last year Rossi and Focardi claimed an energy gain of 213 times. This year, Rossi downgraded that to six. But now he's claiming self-sustaining mode below 200 C. This month, Rossi upgraded that to infinity. This whole business of ratios is meaningless. As Storms, I and others have said many times, once you figure out how to control the reaction, the ratio is just a matter of engineering. Yes. Any self-sustaining device has a COP that is infinite. Rossi's claim has been that self-sustaining devices are dangerous, but that's really only because he's been controlling them with heat. If he can run them at higher temperature, perhaps using applied heat only for ignition, then he might control them by controllying hydrogen feed. That might involve operating at very low pressure, perhaps, or if there is an inert gas that doesn't poison the reaction Or a direct cooling bypass could be designed in, that could rapidly cool the reaction chamber to shut the reaction down. From the comment about 200 C, it looks like Rossi is operating way below the 450 C that's been mentioned before. Tools used by the plumber Outside of the reactor chamber and the hydrogen hook-up, those tools are entirely appropriate for the job. Exactly. What other kinds of tools can anyone use?!? It is a plumbing job. That photo was used by Krivit just for general interest. Krivit does that, and it's fine. I saw no attempt to create any suspicion there. A Hoax? Rossi has claimed, many times and in many reports, that he is not asking anybody for money until he delivers a working product for sale. ... Rossi has always said that he's licensing Defkalion and more recently Ampenergo. Rossi's Greek licensee, Defkalion Green Technologies, however, is asking for money and asking investors to bear the risk. . . . But he omits the critical non-scam lines : -- Meeting in our factory during October to inspect and verify kW units -- Meeting in our factory during December to inspect and verify MW units . . . Not only that, but Rossi is not Defkalion. They are completely separate. Rossi said it is his policy that he will not accept money until he delivers. Defkalion has not said that is their policy. Although it seems they do have a similar policy, based on the above document and the White Paper, as noted. Krivit also did not report on many other things. So? Defkalion implies that they are selling franchises, but these are probably contingent agreements, and money might be deposited into escrow, or, at least, is refundable if Defkalion can't deliver. Overall : Krivit proves Rossi is not a scientist. But we knew that. And that Rossi often makes inconsistent statements. Ditto and likewise. Right. Rossi has said I am not a scientist any number of times. I don't know what it is with people, pointing in triumph to something that everyone knows, and no one disputes, as if they are revealing some deep secret. Krivit was writing a report designed for people who don't know. Actually, my own opinion, he didn't do that particularly well. His report is a farrago of pieces. Worked for me, because I'm familiar with the material. I'm not sure how someone would take this straight-up, with no prior knowledge. The classic example is people who say Ah ha! Cold fusion does not produce neutrons! So it can't be fusion!!! Do they think no one noticed this in 22 years? The theoretical arguments about Rossi are *really stupid.* They warrant maybe a sentence indicating that no known and recognized reaction explains how the Rossi reactor works. Evidence about Rossi's isotopic claims is okay. Krivit provides Rossi's isotopic analysis as an appendix with absolutely no analysis or comment. That's poor practice, I'd suggest, but he's really using NET 37 to archive some documents, like that analysis. It's a distraction as included in the report. Nevertheless, I find NET 37 quite useful, and I thank Krivit for putting it together.
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
At 03:42 AM 8/3/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Accoriding Steven Krivit (#3 report and some earlier writing), Daniele was also present at 18 hour test (i have not seen other sources). Therefore he is within the greates fraud of cold fusion or tells truth that world is saved, because he knows with certainty whether E-Cat is for real or a hoax. Passerini doesn't know for certain, period. The 18 hour test was, very likely, flawed, i.e., while the approach would seem to be more reliable, the way it was done damaged that reliability. I get an image from the old Keystone Cop movies, of clowns falling all over each other. I won't list the problems with that test, but conclusive, it was not. Further, I now strongly suspect Rossi of a type of fraud. He's quite capable of deception, and once that possibility exists with support, it's impossible to trust any demonstration that he controls. If he's for real, he could still arrange conclusive testing, but he's been adamant in opposition to it, consider Jed Rothwell's offer. From what I understand, the 18-hour test would have been operating out of control. When power allegedly hit 130 kW, the reaction chamber would have melted down. Even if this thing didn't melt for some reason, control by heat would obviously not be possible any more, that control depends on remaining below optimal operating temperature (and that's a reason why Rossi downgraded his COP claims, if we want to continue postulating that he's for real), and control by cooling would also not be possible, because they were already running the most possible water available through the device, 1 liter per second. If I'd have seen that power level, I'd have immediately flooded the thing with nitrogen, if I didn't just run! We don't have data on that test. Sure, Passerini might have been convinced. That does not mean that he's on on the fraud. It could mean that he's been fooled just like everyone else. (What could be wrong with that test? My comment above about 130 kW is a how come argument, and these are never conclusive. This one just indicates a reason to be suspicious. More to the point would be that we don't have data; but if we extrapolate from what Levi told Nyteknik about this test, the temperature rise from the heating was about 5 degrees or so. The heating was measured inside the E-cat, instead of in the hose. So temperature differentials inside the E-cat could explain this. Without detailed data, no way to tell.) I guess that indeed he is right, because impact will enormous, both mental and economical. Not least because people ask why this was not 'discovered' earlier? Why we have poured so many gigadollars and several kiloscientists to ridiculous hot fusion research what is at it's best something that we definetely do not want (expensive and polluting). That error stands even if Rossi is as phoney as a wooden nickel. However, if Rossi fails to deliver in October -- no matter what the reason! -- the entire field of cold fusion takes a black eye, and the researchers and supporters who jumped on the bandwagon without adequate evidence (or naively believing that there was adequate evidence) will have been responsible, by default if nothing else. Some researchers have been assiduous in pointing out the problems, but others have supported Rossi, particularly by deflecting the bogus impossibility arguments without making it clear that just because Ni-H reactions are possible doesn't mean that Rossi actually has done what he claimed. And I'd now bet that Rossi will fail to deliver. Rossi's recent comments indicate that he is still struggling with reliability. That's almost the whole banana! Getting occasionally strong results is a classic cold fusion phenomenon, and addressing this, finding strong evidence, required using statistical techniques and correlated results, and strong controls. Rossi has denied the value of controls. Since he has *not* solved the reliability problem, and while it's not impossible that he will, the strong indication is that without major funding and without plenty of time, he won't make it. He's got to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Only he knows how close he is, so I could be wrong. But I wouldn't bet on it. If he's working 18-hour days to meet the deadline, he's on the edge. Or over it. Rossi's fraud is about the strength and reliability of his results, and I find that evidence of deliberate deception there is overwhelming, that's a very recent conclusion, just yesterday. He knows what he's doing. The end game: if he delivers by the end of October, obviously the demonstration fraud becomes almost completely irrelevant. If he does not deliver, he's probably going to have to arrange real demonstrations to continue. Those demonstrations will no longer be naive, and conclusive techniques will be used to deal with his black box. They do not require him to disclose his secret, at all. They can address
RE: [Vo]:Steam Test Kit
At 08:14 PM 8/2/2011, Jones Beene wrote: Mark, Why measure steam quality at all? If there is one lesson we all should have learned from the many painful gigabytes of wasted bandwidth on Vortex about steam quality, it is that you simply cannot satisfy everyone this way. Too many variables. But it's perfect for Rossi. I've collapsed to Occam's Razor. Rossi uses vaporization to measure heat because he can easily fool people that way. It worked: look how long it took for some kind of consensus to form that the method was inadequate! Remember something: what was new about Rossi was not heat from Ni-H. That had been reported before. What was new were claims in the kilowatt region with high COP, and claims of reliability. Suddenly Rossi is claiming huge results, compared to anything before. If we look carefully, Rossi is still working on reliability problems. It looks like he still doesn't have a settled design. Why he even did demonstrations is a mystery. Yeah, the story is he wanted to please Focardi. Well, suppose that was his motive. But suppose he didn't have a reliable reactor. How could he please Focardi? Simple. Make a demonstration that isn't actually fraudulent, as he'd think, but allow people to stumble all over their own assumptions, make it look much better than it is. However, that intention, itself, was fraudulent. Not legal fraud, because he's not selling something with false representations. Just allowing people to make lots of mistakes. And people cooperated, amply.
Re: [Vo]:Fw: New Energy Times #37 and Rossi Report #3
At 02:19 PM 8/1/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: I think there is good evidence for Rossi's claims. I hope that Defkalion soon publishes good evidence for their claims, with more rigorous professional reports than Rossi and Levi et al. have produced so far. I do not think that any of the arguments against Rossi have merit, especially not the ones that attempt to disprove the 18-hour flowing water test. What test? What exactly was done, what data was generated? We have seen how the public demonstrations turned out to have hidden problems, problems that were not immediately obvious, and Rossi and Levi stonewalled, basically, and have yet to even acknowledge the problems, much less address them straight-on. Everything reduces to You'll see in October! So, big surprise, Jed, we are waiting till October. Disproving a test that hasn't even been reported in detail is a fool's errand. I've raised a couple of possible problems with the flowing water test, but remember how long it took to get the problems with the boiling water demos straight? And that was with far more data. As you well know, raising a problem is not any kind of disproof. It's just a problem. At best, something to be addressed. A sober scientist will simply address it. Are there any sober scientists around? I think so, and I think some have written comments that Krivit reproduced. Krivit himself isn't particularly sober, he gets personally involved. But he did a pretty good job collecting those comments. We could supplement that. On Wikiversity, perhaps, under the Rossi subpage, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Energy_Catalyzer
Re: [Vo]:Fw: New Energy Times #37 and Rossi Report #3
At 01:39 PM 8/1/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com wrote: Michele, if you look at this page http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3705report3.shtml scrolling down just past 50% you can see a note and a picture of the factory location The address is from the state of Florida's records of the home office of the company. The alleged factory could certainly exist elsewhere. Yeah, that was all-too-typical Krivit reporting of anything that can be made to look suspicious. I had a corporation in North Carolina, and the office was that of the registered agent, an accountant. Principal place of business really means where can a process server effectively serve process? Where would notices be mailed? It means nothing.
[Vo]:a new essay re the E-cat and its inventor
My dear friends, Recently I have not contributed to the discussions here. However my opinion is here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/impossible-intelligence-test-and.html Sometimes the events are far too interesting. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
At 11:04 AM 7/30/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Jouni Valkonen mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.comjounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: That is very true, it requires lots of steam to rise boiling point temperature by one degree of celsius. How much is lots? If 2% of the liquid vaporizes, that makes lots of steam. Right. The behavior of the E-cat indicates that some water is vaporizing. How much, we have few clues, except that the weakness of the steam in some demos makes it look like not much. It's been pointed out that some demos may have represented not working E-cats. This, all by itself, if true, raises a major issue. To those of us with a major interest in LENR, that there might be Ni-H results wasn't so surprising. There was resistance to Ni-H for theoretical reasons, but this kind of thinking was really the same kind of thinking that caused premature rejection of PdD cold fusion. Unexpected. Rossi made a splash, though, because he was claiming not only high levels of heat, but reliability. Reliability is crucial for commercialization. If he doesn't have a reliable reactor, even if it works sometimes, there is a huge problem and he may fail to deliver in October *even if the things actually do work sometimes.* Mats Lewan's E-Cat had highest ratio of excess heat produced where there was around 2kW excess heat. I agree, if by around you mean give or take 2 kW. More like 1 kW give or take 1 kW! Hey, Cude, how about popping over to Wikiversity and helping develop the Cold fusion resource there, making sure that skeptical POV is well-represented? We had Moulton for a while, but he flamed out. Some good things came out of our discussions, even though he was really a pseudoskeptic. He was smart enough to raise some important issues, and they got clarified. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion etc. There is some mention of the Rossi reactor at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Nickel-hydrogen_system, and there is a page on it at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Energy_Catalyzer. I wrote all that and it's really old and naive now. I now conclude that Rossi is a fraud. He may be finding some excess heat, but his demonstrations and comments amount to fraud anyway. Exaggerating his results is a form of fraud, and that kind of fraud has happened before. Come to think of it, possibly with Rossi. It's not criminal fraud, as far as I know. He can tell the public any story he wants, it's not illegal to lie to the public. After all, politicians, etc.!
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
At 03:18 PM 7/30/2011, you wrote: Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote: What further amazes me is the degree of disconnect between simple newtonian physics and everyday life experiences displayed by so many. I agree. People seem to have no experience with teapots or steam cleaners. Neither teapots nor steam cleaners are designed like an E-cat. They don't have constant water flow input. They can't have overflow water, it's not possible with their design and operation. Storms, if I recall, misundersood how steam made its way along a hose that also contained water. No he did not. He pointed that the water in the hose would condense the steam. He wrote: The chimney would fill with water through which steam would bubble. The extra water would flow into the hose and block any steam from leaving. As the water cooled in the hose, the small amount of steam would quickly condense back to water. Consequently, the hose would fill with water that would flow out the exit at the same rate as the water entered the e-Cat. Storms assumes that the water is below the boiling point. First of all, the E-cat starts with water flowing through it, through the hose into the drain. All the water. Then it's turned on. Eventually the water entering the hose reaches 100 degrees. The hose has been heated by this water all along, so the hose temperature would be near 100 degrees as well. Yes, it would cool, so the initial effect could be some sparging of the steam. However, if steam is being generated, the steam will transfer its heat to the water rapidly, it will all reach 100 C and the steam will blow it out of the way. As steam velocity over the hose outlet increases, water will be entrained as well. Dr. Storms has no experience with calorimetry like this, nor an experimental setup like this. Nobody did. That's why it took so long for so many to figure this out. Storms' analysis did not consider the sequence, how the hose would end up with dry steam, if it did. Long before the steam was dry, there would be mixed steam and water moving through the hose. A little steam goes a long way. If there were full vaporization, the steam velocity would be *very* high. Far below that, the steam velocity would be quite adequate to carry all the water with it, and the water flowing into the hose would be atomized. Very wet steam. With full vaporization of the input flow, the steam would theoretically be dry. For practical reasons, it would never be completely dry. The only way to make completely dry steam is to superheat it. Evidence of superheating is missing. The claim of dry steam, based on a temperature of 100.5 C, where ambient boiling point was 99.6 C., was based on failure to understand that about 0.4 bar of pressure, which could easily be created by steam generation only having a narrow outlet, would raise the boiling point to explain that temperature. Dr. Storms seems to think of wet steam as abnormal, and that wet steam couldn't have more than a few percent liquid by mass. No, actually, it could be very, very high. If only 10 percent of the water were being vaporized, that would be plenty of steam to atomize the flow, entirely. Very low quality steam, only 10% vapor by mass. Isn't this highschool physics? No, it isn't, but the heat of vaporization of steam is. The problem is not the heat of vaporization. The problem is determining the vapor content of the steam. Jed, you wrote again and again that, of course a humidity meter could be used to measure steam quality. After all, the thing reads in g/m^3! That was a very good example of a newbie mistake. Sure, that humidity meter has that scale. It's a calculated value, based on the mass of the vapor, assuming the measured humidity. The meter doesn't determine liquid water at all. That the meter cannot be used for steam quality measurements has now been confirmed by the manufacturer. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3718appendixc0.shtml for the contacts with the manufacturer and see also http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3719appendixc3.shtml for an Italian engineer's analysis. If, in fact, liquid water is accumulating in the hose, the steam production must be quite low. Lots of people have done calculations of steam velocity. If there is full vaporization, it's a hurricane in there!
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Hot Water Experiment and the Pointless Wrangle over Steam Dryness
At 11:39 AM 7/30/2011, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex, IF my memory is correct there was a hot water test on the Rossi Device. Also, it appears the the results of the hot water test were. OK. Well, that's, shall we say, optimistic. It's true, in a way. That is Levi claims to have done a hot water test with Rossi. This was the February test. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer#Bologna.2C_February_2011_test There are problems with this test. Probably because this wasn't a public demonstration, being only witnessed by Levi and Rossi, Krivit doesn't much cover it. Most of what we know about this test comes from the NyTeknik report on it. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece There is no data. There are only Levi's general testimony and conclusions as to power. The test conditions were practally opposite to those with the other demonstrations, which depend, for what is claimed about them, on an assumption or claim that all the water is vaporized. Yet vaporization of all the water is not verified, there is no sign that anyone collected the necessary data. However, Levi reacted with extreme hostility when questioned. Did Krivit insult him and his University? Well, here is the problem. Levi made a huge mistake. For the other tests, he relied upon steam quality measurements by Galantini, when it's obvious that neither Levi or Galantini knew how to measure steam quality, they used a completely bogus method. Krivits' questions might have been clumsily stated, it's not impossible. Krivit had some idea that measurements might have been made on a volume basis, and that's what he was asking about. He wasn't really thoroughly familiar with the issues, for whatever reason. He might have seemed ignorant. But Levi was, himself, out to lunch, and angry that anyone might question his expertise. And he was clearly naive and not aware of the real problems. Nevertheless, the February test, if the data were provided, was a far better approached. But it went too far! I.e., in the other demonstrations, the phase transition of water to steam was used, when it's actually quite difficult to verify full vaporization. So it had been suggested to use a lower temperature. Instead of boiling the water, how about not allowing it to boil at all? Then the only calculation needed would be the simple formula for the involved temperature rise. But instead of simply increasing the flow rate from 4 g/sec, to a level that would keep the temperature below boiling, they increased it to 1 liter per second, a 250X increase. Levi reports a rise of water temperature from 7 C. to 40 C, and calculates power for this as 130 kW. The reactor with such high output would be operating way beyond self-heating mode. It would already be beyond control by a mere 1.25 kW being withdrawn, and control by cooling would be impossible, they were already running very high water flow, they'd not be able to obtain higher flow. This is really inconsistent with everything else we've been told about the E-cat. There is thermal resistance between the reaction chamber and the cooling chamber, there must be, because in the normal E-Cat operation, the reaction chamber is at about 450 C, Rossi has claimed, whereas the cooling chamber is at 100 C. More likely: there was a temperature differential inside the e-Cat. They are not measuring outflow temperature, they are measuring temperature in the Chimney, which may have temperature differentials within it. As to steady state power, if it was 20 kW as Levi claims, the temperature increase of the water must have been about 5 C. This would be very vulnerable to errors, such as temperature differential. Was input water temperature continuously monitored? Etc. If this demonstration really did work as claimed, it would indicate very high danger of thermal runaway. Ineed, it could be estimated that the temperature of the reaction chamber would go to roughly 4000 degrees. Not pretty. Not the kind of thing you'd want to happen if this was close. Yeah, if you completely trust Levi, sounds great. But where is the data? Scientific reports are not based on simple trust my conclusions! A far simpler test that would have allowed using the steam procedure: run two identical E-cats, one without hydrogen. Keep the input power the same for both. (A device for doing this would be to put them in series, if the voltages are adequate. If not, then the voltages should be verified to be the same.) Rossi has declined to do controls, demonstrating his complete misunderstanding of the scientific method, studying the effect of a single variable. He says We already know what will happen with hydrogen: nothing. That could be the way an investigational engineer would think, but when it comes to demonstrating the reality of an effect, controls are essential. The lack of controls leave us wondering about the source of the
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
Consider how futile it should be to make a prediction six months out, as Rossi did regarding October, if reliability was still being addressed the entire time. That does not smell right. One can only predict confidently about well controlled processes. Why arbitrarily box oneself in like that? Sent from my iPhone. On Aug 3, 2011, at 11:17, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: However, if Rossi fails to deliver in October… And I'd now bet that Rossi will fail to deliver. Rossi's recent comments indicate that he is still struggling with reliability.
Re: [Vo]:Fw: New Energy Times #37 and Rossi Report #3
At 10:01 AM 8/1/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Something that has not been clarified here is that the flow rate is rather slow; 120 ml/min. Before the water boils, when the liquid overflows, It would take a long time to fill up the hose. There would be a lot of water in there. Once it starts boiling the steam sparges in the slow moving water. I suppose it would cool down and condense by the time it reaches the end. In other words, the hose would radiate a lot of heat next to the machine, and less further on. There is a problem with this picture. If the water were overflowing at lower than boiling, sure. This is what would happen. However, steady state, we know that any water or steam entering the hose is entering at the boiling point. It will be in equilibrium. Sure, if the hose cools the water, steam will condense in it. But the water will be hot enough to be in equilibrium with the steam, until and unless there is enough cooling to use the water for sparging. Basically, if any steam at all gets to the end, the temperature will still be at 100 C. and so will the water. If the claimed energy were being generated, the steam velocity would be such as to totally blow away small amounts of water. My view of this is that as the water spills over the edge of the opening for the drain hose, and as significant steam begins to be generated, the steam will atomize that water. Thus the device is designed to generate extremely wet steam. That steam will be at 100 C, in equilibrium with the suspended water. Some of that water may fall inside the hose, or, depending on steam velocity, it may remain suspended. However, the volume of the steam, if there is lots of liquid water in it, will be much less than full vaporization would predict. This rough analysis explains how, while most boilers don't generate extremely wet steam, the E-cat seems designed to do it, by the way that steam and water exit the device, and the fact that there is constant flow of water, which is very unusual for a boiler, they simply are not built that way. They are built so that they cannot overflow like this. We know from the temperature that water is boiling. We do not know how much. Even a small percentage of the water being vaporized would be enough to blow the water spilling over the hose outlet into droplets. All of this would be at boiling temperature. With this design, the assumption of full vaporization is highly defective. It would have to be ruled out by definitive observation. It's probably easier and more definitive to do what you'd have done, Jed. Sparge all the steam and determine the heat released to the sparging water. Do this close to the E-cat, so that you aren't missing the heat radiated through the hose. If, however, there is full vaporization, the velocity of that steam would be so high that there would be little condensation, the hose would rapidly heat to boiling temperature. Live steam transfers heat quickly. It would have been easy to verify at least reasonably dry steam, just put a valve in the hose so that hose flow can be shut down. When it is believed that there is full vaporization (which could be verified by a short length of transparent hose before the valve), open the steam valve at the top, allowing steam to escape. Close the hose valve. Stand back. If there is only a little wetness to the steam, nothing will happen but a fat steam plume. But if there is a lot of water, it might get wet near it. Don't like this? There are other options. But if the matter is as claimed, easy enough to just open the valve, only steam will come out. My sense is that when the relief valve was opened for Kullander and Essen to observe the steam, and water continued (possibly) to flow out the hose, they saw good steam. What they didn't notice was, quite possibly, that the volume was nowhere near what would be expected from full vaporization. From interviews by email as reported by Krivit, they really didn't realize how much volume was involved at the water flow rates and full vaporization. They were probably alert to various fraud modes, such as hidden wires, etc. Anyway, the demonstration was unclear and there is not much point to trying to analyze it in detail. I cannot understand why Rossi does not do a more convincing test. That's because you are not willing to hypothesize fraud. Our history with cold fusion has led us to reject the fraud hypothesis, out of hand. But there are various kinds of fraud. One that I suspected from early on -- just as a theoretical possibility -- was that Rossi was exaggerating his results. It's fraud if he knows he's doing it. He's doing it. Does he know? I'd say that if he doesn't know, he's utterly incompetent, blinded by his desires. Other possibilities remain and cannot be completely ruled out. But I've finally settled on fraud. It's much simper than the alternatives, and it matches the data quite well. The kicker:
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
At 08:49 AM 7/30/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote: It irritates me to no end. All the rational evidence we have been presented supports the claim that water spills through the outlet. No, that cannot be happening. As Storms pointed out, there would be no steam at the end of the hose. As I pointed out, the temperature would immediately fall below boiling. It would be obvious. That is based on an assumption that the water is below the boiling point. If water is being vaporized, even a low percentage of it, the water will quickly reach boiling, for all the water flowing into the hose from the cooling chamber will be at boiling, and we know this from the chimney temperature. If the water in the hose is below boiling, it will rapidly be heated by sparging steam. Further, it's obvious that water spills out through the outlet, at least part of the time. That's how the reactor starts up! It starts with all the water spilling out. Then what happens? I think it's fascinating that nobody reports having watched the transition. I.e, this thing starts with water flowing out the hose. The E-cat temperature starts to rise. Water is still spilling out, but it's getting hotter. At some point something happens. Watching that transition could provide some very interesting clues. I think this is what would be seen: when the E-cat temperature hits boiling, very rapidly all the standing water in the hose would be blown out of the hose. Yet at this point, only a small percentage of water would be being vaporized, because the E-cat has just reached the boiling point. There would be the *appearance* of steam, it would be at the *temperature* of steam, but it would be wet steam. It would become dryer if heat evolution increases. Does that evolution increase? How would we know? To know, we'd have to know the dryness of the steam. And how would we know that? Jed, I assume you have read the reports that the manufacturer of the humidity meter Galantini used has confirmed that it cannot be used to measure steam quality. Period. You'll need something else, they said. Sorry. I'd come to the same conclusion from reading the specifications, but also from the general nature of a humidity meter. You were highly skeptical of that, dismissive, as if anyone challenging this was challenging all expertise and common sense. Are you going to acknowledge the error? Can you understand how you fell into this? That might be useful. It is possible to notice the taste of one's foot. From that, one might be able to detect foot-in-mouth much more quickly next time.
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
I don't see any problem with 130KW, given it was just a spike in power with a base at 18KW, which is measured by the amount of steam poured. That means a 7 time increase in speed of the steam for some seconds. It probably blew as strong as a vacuum cleaner.
Re: [Vo]:Fw: New Energy Times #37 and Rossi Report #3
At 10:01 AM 8/1/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Something that has not been clarified here is that the flow rate is rather slow; 120 ml/min. Before the water boils, when the liquid overflows, It would take a long time to fill up the hose. There would be a lot of water in there. Once it starts boiling the steam sparges in the slow moving water. I suppose it would cool down and condense by the time it reaches the end. In other words, the hose would radiate a lot of heat next to the machine, and less further on. It should be understood that the demonstrations begin with flowing water, before the power is turned on. The hose is filled and water is running out the end. The water is initially cool. However, the water is being heated, and the temperature of the water in the chimney is what is recorded. So the water and the hose will gradually approach boiling temperature. When boiling begins, the water in the hose may be a little short of boiling, but both the continued flow of water, now at the boiling point, and the sparging of steam that may travel more rapidly throught the hose will quickly bring it all to boiling temperature. Once the water is at boiling, sparging will no longer result in condensation of steam. The water moves, from the pump, too slowly to accomodate the steam flow. Once boiling begins, the steam and water will start moving much more rapidly. Even a relatively small percentage of water being vaporized will create such high velocities that any standing water will be blown out of the hose, it will clear itself. Once there is high velocity steam flowing in the hose, any overflow water will be atomized into a mist, because it will flow over the hose opening as a thin trickle with high velocity steam flowing over it. This is how the E-cat begins: first with water flowing out, then with very wet steam. If heat generation continues to increase, the steam will become dryer and dryer. I don't know how much water being vaporized it would take until most water was being atomized, but it might be only a few percent or so, the volume of steam is so much larger than the same mass of water. Thus the method of determining heat as set up by Rossi, produces the same apparent result over a wide range of energies. The temperature in the chimney will be the temperature of wet steam, fixed by the nature of the two-phase system. That temperature does not indicate the wetness of the steam, at all, until and unless it can be shown to be above boiling at the pressure in the chimney, which would, indeed, indicate dry steam. There could be dry steam in the chimney, and still the steam in the hose would be wet, from overflow water being atomized at the hose outlet. And what would be coming out of the port, if you were to pull off the hose, would look like steam, wet steam, until and unless the energy was enough to completely vaporize the inflow. (Even then, with a long hose, cooling in the hose would condense some water. But this water, if there were true dry steam at the volumes necessary from the vaporization of the stated mass flow, would never stand, the steam velocity would be way too high, it would be swept along as mist.) My original comments were thinking of liquid overflow, as has been shown in one of the diagrams in Krivit's report. In fact, if there is significant vaporization, there would no longer be liquid flow, the liquid would be atomized, I now think, by the nature of the physical arrangement. It's looking like the Rossi reaction is designed such as to generate steam of very high wetness, once it really starts steaming. Before that, the hose is filled with water, that's how it starts. The transition has not been observed, as far as we know.
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
2011/8/3 Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com: Consider how futile it should be to make a prediction six months out, as Rossi did regarding October, if reliability was still being addressed the entire time. That does not smell right. One can only predict confidently about well controlled processes. Why arbitrarily box oneself in like that? There has not been anything that prevents technology to not work. Only thing what Rossi has fixed is reliabilty and control power efficiency. This means that technology is getting cheaper than he previously estimated. Abd ul-Rahman, you are free to express your opinion, but it is just speculation. There is absolutely nothing in your criticism that has any factual content. Question is how much money you are willing to bet for your opinion? I will challenge you for 40 euros that Rossi does not do a fraud. If E-Cat is true, you pay 40 euros to charity, and if not I pay 40 euros for charity. - Jouni
[Vo]:Dr Peter Glucks comment on Rossi is Refreshing
Greetings Vortex-L I found Dr Glucks comment on the Rossi cell as well as his comments on communism ...refreshing. I think that there are many of us out there who are very patiently awaiting October .. for the Truth. My comment: One does not try.. ..One either does or does not Yoda. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex
[Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I do not think that any of the arguments against Rossi have merit, especially not the ones that attempt to disprove the 18-hour flowing water test. What test? What exactly was done, what data was generated? The data provided can be found here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm This data is similar to what you find on a boiler test form, filled in by an inspector. It is no less detailed than that. No sensible person would suggest that such tests are inadequate, or that there is some reason why they might be wrong. They are, of course, imprecise. As it says on the guides to these forms, the results are plus or minus 10%. If those tests did not work, in every major city dozens of boilers would explode every day. That does not happen. We have seen how the public demonstrations turned out to have hidden problems . . . No, we have not. All of the hidden problems are figments of the overworked imaginations of people who have never done such tests, and who do not know what they are talking about. Any HVAC engineer will know that this test is valid, and that all of the objections to it raised here are nonsense. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
Considering Jouni's recent challenge: ...I will challenge you for 40 euros that Rossi does not do a fraud. If E-Cat is true, you pay 40 euros to charity, and if not I pay 40 euros for charity. This strikes me as a civilized bet, one that could be formalized between two reasonable individuals who respectfully differ on certain opinions. The only problem with this wager, as I perceive it, is how does one determine fraud? Granted, if Rossi's dog and pony show gets off the ground in October Abd would be obliged to generously pay 40 euros to his favorite charity. But if October comes and goes, does that automatically mean Rossi is a fraud, and Charles needs to reciprocate? Of course not, particularly if technical difficulties become more apparent as the deadline approaches. My own predilections pertaining to the fascinating Rossi enigma is that technical difficulties may delay the October show - or perhaps it will be significantly downgraded into a less impressive demo. Of course, I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps Charles and Hope should set a realistic time-table or deadline for when fraud should be officially declared. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Biological Transmutation from Cs137 to Ba138
I found a very interesting news on the Japanese newspaper. http://translate.google.co.jp/translate?js=nprev=_thl=jaie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1sl=jatl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.minpo.jp%2Fview.php%3FpageId%3D4107%26blockId%3D9873865%26newsMode%3Darticle Dr. Kazue Tazaki supposes radioactive cesium was transmuted to barium by the metabolism of bacteria. It's similar to the following article by Dr.Vysotskii. http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol4.pdf JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE VOLUME 4, February 2011 Low-energy Nuclear Reactions and Transmutation of Stable and Radioactive Isotopes in Growing Biological Systems Vladimir I. Vysotskii and Alla A. Kornilova In the article, Figure 9. shows Accelerated deactivation (accelerated rates of decay) of Cs137 isotope in biological cells in presence of different chemical elements. The most rapidly increasing decay rate is near 310 days. He wrote a possible reaction of radioactive Cs137 isotope utilization is Cs137 + p1 = Ba138 + 5.5 MeV. --Sengaku
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Oh! So the 18 hour test did not involve phase change, no steam! This is surely amusing since one can hardly falsify that so easily with people that are used to the usual tiny LENR effects. HAHA! This is certaily AMAZING! So, if this is a scam, well, it is a HUGE ONE. Now, Rossi really did convince that he has something HUGE, for good or for bad, and he will not be forgotten that easily!
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
From Jed: What test? What exactly was done, what data was generated? The data provided can be found here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm Jed, I realize it is probably redundant of me to express the following but could you point readers to the specific article(s) you believe make your point. Your news link: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm has a lot of entries. It might help to be more specific as to which installment is most relevant to the point you are making. Is it the 18-hour demonstration? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
2011/8/3 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com: Considering Jouni's recent challenge: ...I will challenge you for 40 euros that Rossi does not do a fraud. If E-Cat is true, you pay 40 euros to charity, and if not I pay 40 euros for charity. Perhaps Charles and Hope should set a realistic time-table or deadline for when fraud should be officially declared. End of the year 2011 is reasonable deadline for scientific validation of Rossi's Cold Fusion technology. I think that Rossi is reasonable enough person that even if he fails with commercialization with his own efforts, he does not keep partially working technology only by himself in order to perfect it in unforeseeable future. This is why Randell Mills is a ethical criminal, because he has had so long time working cold fusion device and he has refused to bring it to public even though his commercialization efforts has not borne any fruits for several years. Of course there is that possible explanation that Mills does not have any new and ground breaking scientific evidence, but we should not condemn people as fraudsters without proper evidence. - Jouni Ps. However, I will condemn Mills crack pot theory as false, because he is explaining cold fusion effect by dark matter. This is very feeble argument, because there is no such thing as dark matter or at least, we do not have any evidence that supports that hypothesis!
Re: [Vo]:Dr Peter Glucks comment on Rossi is Refreshing
Thsnks Ron, and please call me Peter. Peter On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings Vortex-L I found Dr Glucks comment on the Rossi cell as well as his comments on communism ...refreshing. I think that there are many of us out there who are very patiently awaiting October .. for the Truth. My comment: One does not try.. ..One either does or does not Yoda. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm has a lot of entries. It might help to be more specific as to which installment is most relevant to the point you are making. Is it the 18-hour demonstration? Yup. Let me put a link to it: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#Rossi18HourTest (You may need to reload the page to see this on the menu.) I keep thinking I am going to establish a Rossi-Defkalion page, but like everyone else, I am waiting for better data. I am sure I have made it clear that I am not satisfied with the level of reporting from Levi, Rossi and the others. On the other hand, as I said, the brief report they made in NyTeknik and to me is roughly as detailed as boiler test form. The only thing missing is the type of flowmeter. Note that a boiler test report includes a great deal of other information and other procedures, such as tests of the thermostats and starters. When I say these reports have only as much data as the 18-hour test, I mean the section devoted to calorimetry. The information presented in a boiler test is not typically parsed out the way the 18-hour test is presented. It is the same information, but expressed in a different way, with different units (BTUs etc.) Essentially, what they do is compare the measured temperature values for a given flow rate against the manufacture's specifications, to confirm it is producing as much hot water or steam as expected. The basic method of measuring flow, inlet and outlet temperatures is the same. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
It does strike me as just a tad obsessive to meticulously focus on Rossi's Chiwawa and Shetland Pony demonstrations, which were nothing more than trade shows - and then treat them as if they were valid scientific experiments. No wonder skeptics have found fault with them. Certainly, we would all love to see more rigorous experimental tests performed for which we in the Peanut Gallery would get our hands on. Jed has sed this, and so has Abd. No one disputes this. However, Rossi has a different perspective on the matter, and there isn't much we can do about it except complain and/or find fault with Rossi's occasional carnival-like behavior. Regarding on-going criticism, I'm am sometimes left speculating that certain skeptics may have deliberately chosen to retaliate by trying to goad Rossi into revealing more of his eCat secrets - by implying this or that about his work. Who knows. I dunno. I still suspect there probably is something genuine going on here. Maybe even enuf to commercialize. I'm just not convinced that everything will be revealed to everyone's satisfaction when October rolls by. On that point, I'm still willing to cut Rossi additional slack if there is sufficient evidence to suggest the fact that he's on to something. The fact that two universities seem to think there is something to Rossi's claims gives me hope. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Boiler test forms
Here are some boiler test forms, and information about them: http://www.peci.org/ftguide/ftg/SystemModules/Boilers/Functional_Testing_for_Boilers.htm This is worth reading. It will make you respect HVAC engineers. As I said, there are many tests other than calorimetry, for things like actuators and thermostats: safeties, interlocks, Alarms actuation and sequencing control accuracy and stability and so on. The calorimetry section here is called boiler efficiency test. These are complicated machines. They are wonderful. A cold fusion boiler will ultimately be cheaper than gas or electric ones, for the reasons described in my book, but it will still be complicated and expensive. Here is a Word document from this site with an efficiency test: http://www.peci.org/ftguide/ftg/SystemModules/AirHandlers/AHU_ReferenceGuide/CxTestProtocolLib/Documents/hw10ml.doc From p. 3, here is the data recorded for an efficiency test: 1.Leaving boiler heating water (HW) temp, design / measured 2.Entering boiler HW temp, design / measured 3.Delta (entering - leaving) HW temp, design 4.Delta HW temp, measured. Acceptance: 15% of design 5.Boiler water flow rate, design gpm 6.Boiler water flow rate, measured gpm (from TAB report). Acceptance: 10% of design As I said, this is roughly as much data as Levi et al. provided. If you were an expert investigating a boiler accident, and you looked up state agency inspection data on a boiler, this is what you would find. No expert would claim in court: That data is not enough to tell us if the boiler was working. It might have been producing 1,000 times less energy than the test indicates. (As one person claimed here.) That's preposterous. The method is, as noted on this form, good enough to ensure that the machines are with 10% of design specifications. This test, along with all the stuff the inspector looks at, is accurate enough to ensure the machines are working correctly and they are safe. If the machine was actually producing 1000 times less energy than the test indicates, or even 1.5 times less, it would not be safe, and this test would not be used. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
The data provided can be found here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm This data is similar to what you find on a boiler test form, filled in by an inspector. Dear Jed! Following your link I read: A source close to the test gave Jed Rothwell the following figures. How would you call that? Don’t be upset, but I would call that: „an unpublished report of data of an anonymous source on a private webpage“. Don’t you agree? Why is it possible, that the (IMHO) most interesting test of the wondrous device remains undocumented? Why are Rossi and Levi hiding the notebook-files? Would you buy a conventional boiler according to such a source? Angela -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
On 11-08-02 06:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I now conclude that Rossi is a fraud. He may be finding some excess heat, but his demonstrations and comments amount to fraud anyway. Exaggerating his results is a form of fraud, and that kind of fraud has happened before. Come to think of it, possibly with Rossi. It's not criminal fraud, as far as I know. He can tell the public any story he wants, it's not illegal to lie to the public. Yes it is, if they're potential investors. And if this is a fraud, and if the investors in Defkalion really exist, then somebody's been doing something illegal, that's for sure. (But maybe the laws are different in Greece, and you can tell stockholders anything you want...)
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
On 11-08-02 06:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I now conclude that Rossi is a fraud. Rossi is probably certain that his device will produce miraculous amounts of power, but he needs to get just a few small engineering details right before it does, and he is sure he can do it by October. OK, maybe he faked a few demos. So what? The e-cat will surely be ready in time.
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Angela Kemmler angela.kemm...@gmx.de wrote: A source close to the test gave Jed Rothwell the following figures. How would you call that? Don’t be upset, but I would call that: „an unpublished report of data of an anonymous source on a private webpage“. Don’t you agree? Call it anything you like. The data was reviewed by Rossi on his webpage and it was also published in NyTeknik. It is obvious that Rossi, Levi and the others have seen the NyTeknik article and also LENR-CANR.org. They would have told Lewan and I if our accounts were incorrect. They may be lying, but there is no chance that my numbers are not what they reported. Why is it possible, that the (IMHO) most interesting test of the wondrous device remains undocumented? Why are Rossi and Levi hiding the notebook-files? The make and model of the flowmeter. I asked them several times and they ignored me. There is probably other germane information in their notebooks. They are not hiding it exactly; they are simply ignoring requests for information. Many professors do that. Generally speaking, getting information out of academic researchers is like pulling teeth. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: CMNS: a new essay re the E-cat and its inventor
At 11:46 AM 8/3/2011, Peter Gluck wrote: My dear friends, Recently I have not contributed to the discussions here. However my opinion is here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/impossible-intelligence-test-and.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/impossible-intelligence-test-and.html Sometimes the events are far too interesting. That's a great essay, Peter, I highly recommend it. Thanks.
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
At 11:58 AM 8/3/2011, Charles Hope wrote: At 11:58 AM 8/3/2011, you wrote: Consider how futile it should be to make a prediction six months out, as Rossi did regarding October, if reliability was still being addressed the entire time. That does not smell right. One can only predict confidently about well controlled processes. Why arbitrarily box oneself in like that? It's just one more example of how Rossi's behavior doesn't make sense, if we assume him to be rational. However, human beings are often not rational. Some will, for example, boast of what they haven't actually got in hand, believing that they *will* have it in hand. This is the picture as it has developed, with some extrapolations by me. Aspects of this could be completely wrong. Focardi is aging, and wanted a public demonstration. Rossi wasn't ready, but wanted to please Focardi. So he held a demo. The demo was of a device that wasn't working really reliably, and the demonstration method left a great deal to be desired. Criticism started to appear. Bottom line, though, Rossi wasn't ready. He had, or at least believed he had, occasional results that were large. Was he fooling himself? I don't know. I do know that the assumption of full vaporization was seductive, and could be very wrong. Rossi was divided. Part of him wished he'd never done a demo. The demo tipped off competition and fired it up. It also drew a great deal of attention to his checkered past. But he did respond to requests for more demonstrations, but he needed to cover up the problems. He'd managed to create an *impression* of a lot of heat, and he absolutely wasn't interested in negating that. So he dismissed all criticisms with his standard refrain, I'll be ready in October. October seemed, then, so far away. Surely he could solve the problems by then! And he manipulated the demos to make them more impressive. He was trapped by his secrecy and by his ego. He could have simply said, no comment. He could have stopped all demos after the first. Or he could have allowed a conclusive demo. However, a conclusive demo risks the E-cat involved being a dud. And Rossi, again, has mixed motives.
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
At 12:00 PM 8/3/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote: I don't see any problem with 130KW, given it was just a spike in power with a base at 18KW, which is measured by the amount of steam poured. That means a 7 time increase in speed of the steam for some seconds. It probably blew as strong as a vacuum cleaner. No, the water flow was so high that 130 kW only increased the temperature by 33 degrees. There was no steam in this demonstration. (More accurately, the measured temperature, according to Levi, increased by 33 degrees. However, in the steam tests, the velocity at 18 kW would be tornado velocity, I think, or more than that. 130 kW would probably rip up the hoses, etc.)
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
Yeah, I saw that later and acknowledged that in the other thread about 18 hour test. Answer me there :)
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
I was thinking about a thick hose, anyway :)
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
At 01:34 PM 8/3/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Abd ul-Rahman, you are free to express your opinion, but it is just speculation. There is absolutely nothing in your criticism that has any factual content. Question is how much money you are willing to bet for your opinion? I will challenge you for 40 euros that Rossi does not do a fraud. If E-Cat is true, you pay 40 euros to charity, and if not I pay 40 euros for charity. I'm willing to make an investment of a kind, but at this point I consider the possibility of *delivery on-time* to be less than fifty percent. You are offering even odds, and, further, I'd be taking a risk for no real gain. Rossi did that. I won't. Remember, I've concluded that Rossi is a fraud, but that does not mean that his reactors never work, nor that he will fail to make them work. Somehow the subtle distinctions evade some people. He's a fraud because he has presented deceptive evidence. People sometimes do this even to support what they believe is true, and even to support what is actually true. Happens all the time! Tell me, Jouni, what do you think the odds are for Rossi delivering by the end of October? I could then consider a rational investment in the future of this thing. The test is not whether or not Rossi is real because there is no way to prove that reliably under all conditions. Perhas the test would be Rossi making the end of October dealine he's mentioned. He delivers and Defkalion pays him, as a demonstration of satisfaction with the delivery. Jouni, I've done a great deal of research on this topic. What I write is not mere speculation. You commented that absolutely nothing in your criticism has any factual content. So the links I've provided to steam calculators, to manufacturer web pages, to the evidence published by Nyteknik, and so forth, don't exist? Jouni, you are incautious about what you write. I'll make that equivalent to deluded.
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
I wrote: Why are Rossi and Levi hiding the notebook-files? The make and model of the flowmeter. I asked them several times and they ignored me. I thought that said WHAT are Rossi and Levi hiding . . . The answer is: they are hiding the type of flowmeter. As to WHY they are hiding it I am pretty sure that is the same reason most professors hide stuff. Have you ever looked for something in a professor's lab? You will find it under a pile of papers, books, sample materials, dirty dishes and unfinished sandwiches. Professors will promise to send me a paper, and then I remind them months later, and again months later, and it drags on for years. They take on an assignment and they finish it 6 months to never after the due date. If I had known that professors tend to be this way when I was in college, I might have felt differently about deadlines. Then again it might have taken me 20 years to graduate on their timetables. For the record, Edison was even messier than your average professor. Ed Storms reports that when go-getter know-it-all directors come to National Laboratories from private industry or corporate front offices, they look around at the chaos and broken equipment and say: This place is a pigsty! I want this stuff cleaned up. Throw away that 20-year old equipment! So they clean up, and progress comes to a half for the next several years, since researchers can no longer scrounge or salvage old parts for experiments. There is a good reason why hands-on experimental researchers keep all that junk around. Also, something that apparently did not occur to Krivit is that when you are assembling plumbing, you need plumbing tools. It makes no difference whether the plumbing in for your kitchen sink, an eCat, a Tokamak reactor or the Fukushima nuclear reactor. Plumbing is plumbing and it calls for pipe wrenches. What else? Most of an experimental apparatus is made of ordinary stuff. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
At 01:47 PM 8/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: The data provided can be found here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htmhttp://lenr-canr.org/News.htm Who wrote that? Whose testimony is it? This data is similar to what you find on a boiler test form, filled in by an inspector. The inspector signs the form and is legally responsible for having actually made the recorded measurements. It is no less detailed than that. No sensible person would suggest that such tests are inadequate, or that there is some reason why they might be wrong. They are, of course, imprecise. As it says on the guides to these forms, the results are plus or minus 10%. If those tests did not work, in every major city dozens of boilers would explode every day. That does not happen. The described test isn't the same as the tests that work. We have seen how the public demonstrations turned out to have hidden problems . . . No, we have not. All of the hidden problems are figments of the overworked imaginations of people who have never done such tests, and who do not know what they are talking about. You are nuts, Jed. Sorry. You really are in denial about this, and I don't know why. Experts are commenting, and Kullander and Essen are quietly backing away. Any HVAC engineer will know that this test is valid, and that all of the objections to it raised here are nonsense. Great. Get one to sign off on it, taking personal responsibility for error. However, the reactor isn't anything like what they have seen. In particular, it appears to me that the reactor is designed and operated very differently from a standard boiler. This, indeed, fooled many people. Normal boilers produce wet steam, all right, but down around 5% wet. So nobody expected that steam might be, say, 95% water by mass. That's because nobody would ever design a boiler where the water can spill out into the steam exhaust. Nobody would ever have a fixed inflow rate. No engineer has experience with that, because it would create a host of problems. No, level control is used. In the Rossi experiments, it could easily be managed, it seems to me, with gravity feed. Jed, we don't have the data on the 18-hour test to criticize it clearly. Sure, it looks good, but it raises a host of questions. Like what 130 kW would do to the reactor. None of that is conclusive, maybe, maybe, maybe. Aside from that, what's been appearing is enough to consider substantial the risk that Rossi has manipulated *any demonstration* by changing parameters and not disclosing that. I wrote long ago that fraud can never be ruled out. Jed, you pooh-poohed this, claiming that the existing demonstrations were so conclusive that fraud could not be ruled out. Yet that conclusiveness vanished. Without any need for a fraud claim. However, there remains an appearance of some excess heat, for example in the Kullander and Essen test, where it is claimed that the temperature rose higher than the input power could manage. And, indeed, so it appears. That's an appearance of about 600 W of power. Once we realize that Rossi could have rather easily created that appearance through manipulation, that manipulation was actually observed but not noticed at first, it's seen in the videos, all bets are off. In spite of your well-advised caution about not going to the demonstrations without your own equipment, not going if you are not allowed to arrange a conclusive demonstration, you've still been snookered. Along with a lot of other people. This thing was good! I do think Rossi did this deliberately. And I still can't tell if he's got *anything*. Probably something, at least some of the time. It's an old cold fusion story. Reliability is the biggest problem in cold fusion.
[Vo]:Swedish man caught trying to split atoms at home
Swedish man caught trying to split atoms at home http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/08/03/international/i08D22.DTL#ixzz1U05lkxzV A Swedish man who was arrested after trying to split atoms in his kitchen said Wednesday he was only doing it as a hobby. Richard Handl told The Associated Press that he had the radioactive elements radium, americium and uranium in his apartment in southern Sweden when police showed up and arrested him on charges of unauthorized possession of nuclear material.
[Vo]:Rossi keeps inviting
Peter Ekstrom will join the October's party? Greven Grevesson August 2nd, 2011 at 4:32 PM Dear mr. Rossi As many others I want October to approach faster as this is very exciting! I have a small request for you, and I have seen the same request before: could you please consider to invite Peter Ekström from the university of Lund to the October demonstration? He is a very well renomated nuclear scientist and has previously been asked to analyze your machine. He is sceptic based on scientific evaluations, but has never bad mouthed you. If he says the machine works after the demonstration there will no longer be any doubt around your fascinating invention. Here is his contact information: http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=24911task=listEngPersonusername=nucl-pek Best Regards Greven Grevesson Andrea Rossi August 2nd, 2011 at 7:10 PM Dear Greven Grevesson: You are right: I will invite Prof. Peter Ekstrom to visit the plant. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
2011/8/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: I've done a great deal of research on this topic. Problem is that mere research is not enough, because you need to be able to do your own conclusions from data and that includes reading other people's mind from between the lines. This is very difficult, because we have always only partial knowledge from other people's mind and there is not much visible words in between lines, but this is also the most difficult and most advanced task what human brain can perform, so that it can phenomenally well construct good working theory of other people's mind and real intentions although data is grossly insufficient. There is no facts that support your opinion. I am also done my research and I can say that there is nothing that contradicts the grand scheme (Isotopic ratios are the strongest argument, but I have not seen results of final analysis by Swedish scientists. Krivit also stated in his #3 report that Nickel-62 enrichment is extremely expensive, but I think that he does not know what he is saying), but I admit that I need to dig perhaps too deep into Rossi's mind. Therefore I am only €40 sure that E-Cat is part of reality! It is unscientific to say that I am 70% sure that E-Cat is real. It is better to say that I am €40 sure that E-Cat is real!, what means that I am ready to bet for 40 euros that E-Cat is real. It is sad that I do not have confidence to bet 400 euros, because several people would take the bet, because they are absolutely sure that cold fusion was debunked in 1989 by MIT hot fusion researchers. Several people has already promised to eat their hat and if it is not a straw hat, it is not very healthy for you. But of course it is frustrating that I have no other evidence to support my claim than my opinion. However I have made a slight contribution, that I showed a method how it is possible to calculate accurately enough the real output of E-Cat demonstrations and thus remove the most presented critical arguments. It is not Rossi's fault that he exaggerated the power output, but wrong doers are those scientist, who were unable to do appropriate power output calculations from temperature value. For example, several people ignored completely such a basic experimental protocol as calibrating thermometer. This is unforgivable mistake to do! - Jouni
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: The data provided can be found here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm**http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm Who wrote that? Whose testimony is it? I wrote it! Who do you think? I talked to the people there and I wrote it. If you don't like my version read Levi's: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece This data is similar to what you find on a boiler test form, filled in by an inspector. The inspector signs the form and is legally responsible for having actually made the recorded measurements. Oh please. Levi's by-line is in the NyTekNik article. Take it or leave it. Cut the legalese. You are nuts, Jed. Sorry. You really are in denial about this, and I don't know why. Experts are commenting, and Kullander and Essen are quietly backing away. They are not. Where did you hear that nonsense? In particular, it appears to me that the reactor is designed and operated very differently from a standard boiler. This, indeed, fooled many people. Normal boilers produce wet steam, all right, but down around 5% wet. So nobody expected that steam might be, say, 95% water by mass. I am talking the 18-hour flowing water test. That's what it says in the heading of this thread. Forget about steam. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Millennium Falcon or Odd Sea Floor Formation
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:06:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2021174/Have-scientists-crashed-flying-saucer-seabed.html#ixzz1Torn51mJ There is one obvious natural phenomenon that is circular - a volcanic crater - also not unknown on the sea floor. The discoloration could be ejecta carried by the current. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
At 02:10 PM 8/3/2011, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm has a lot of entries. It might help to be more specific as to which installment is most relevant to the point you are making. Is it the 18-hour demonstration? In context, it would be. Much of that is interpretation, by an unknown interpreter (Rothwell?). I now notice that the information was provided by a source close to the test who gave the information to Jed Rothwell. Here is the actual information, with interpretation stripped out. Precise information about some aspects is missing. If this test was intended to answer objections about the January 14 test, it's very odd that far less data was made available than for the January test. On February 10 and 11, 2011, Levi et al. (U. Bologna) performed another test of the Rossi device. These are approximations: Duration of test: 18 hours Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = ~833 ml/s. Cooling water input temperature: 15°C Cooling water output temperature: ~20°C Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W for 6 hours Conclusion (written by Jed?): The temperature difference of 5°C * 833 ml = 4,165 calories/second = 17,493 W. Observers estimated average power as 16 kW. A 5°C temperature difference can easily be measured with confidence. The Nyteknik report has 1 liter/second. There is no actual record of input power correlated with temperature. No record of temperature over time. No record of actual continuous flow. (It's been claimed that a water meter was used, that's a *very* high flow rate.) If this were designed as a more conclusive test, they badly screwed up by using such a high flow, producing only 5 C temperature rise. Sure 5 C can be measured with confidence, if the same thermometer is used, probably within about 0.2 degree. But a temperature difference that small could be produced by thermometer placement. If that rise was produced with the high flow rate and only 20 W of input power, this source of artifact seems unlikely to me. But maybe, depending on internal details that we don't know. This is far from a conclusive demonstration, the largest problem being the paucity of information. We don't have enough information about the public demos or tests monitored by clearly independent observers (such as Kullander and Essen, Mats Lewan, and Steve Krivit), this one is worse. My biggest problem with the 18-hour test is fitting the behavior together with the other demonstrations and what else we know about the claims. The E-cat would be completely out of control. It's operating self-sustained, effectively, or very, very close to the edge. Consider the 130 KW excursion that was reported (in the Nyteknik report on this). This has to be above self-sustaining temperature, and the cooling is already absolutely the most they could manage. Why didn't this thing run away? Actually, it looks like it did. What stopped it? The test depends entirely upon the reliability of those who ran it. What we'd expect from independent observers is *data*. Boiler test reports are a set of variables found by long experience to indicate the operating health of a boiler. There is no way to compare this report with a boiler test. Looks to me, from data found elsewhere, this thing nearly exploded. In fact, the wonder is that it didn't. If the data is real, not manipulated. Rossi's unreliability, excused as his eccentricity, is devastating.
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
I wrote: Oh please. Levi's by-line is in the NyTekNik article. Take it or leave it. Cut the legalese. I mean to say it is not his by-line; it is by Lewan, but it is ridiculous to doubt it. Levi would have objected if he had been misquoted. This legalistic speculation that the data in NyTekNik or LENR-CANR.org is not what was reported by Levi et al. to us is outrageous. Of course it is what they reported! Make of these results what you will. Go ahead and invent absurd fairy tales about how there might be 1000 times less heat than the laws of nature prove it is. But please stop the nonsensical assertions that Lewan and I are incapable of writing down numbers that people tell us! This is a science forum, not a courtroom. Frankly, it is damned insulting to suggest that I would lie about these numbers, or that Lewan and are incapable of transcribing tape recorded conversations (what he did), copying numbers out of e-mail, or double-checking figures. If you don't want to believe Levi that's fine but don't blame us for reporting what he and the other said. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Boiler test reports are a set of variables found by long experience to indicate the operating health of a boiler. There is no way to compare this report with a boiler test. Except that the data recorded in a boiler test is EXACTLY what you see here, for crying out loud! Do you think heat from cold fusion works differently from the heat from a gas fired or electrical water heater? You can't measure it with calorimetry? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Millennium Falcon or Odd Sea Floor Formation
Interesting note in the article: The shape was found at the bottom of the Gulf of Bothnia during a search for a sunken wreck which contained several cases of champagne. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through to get a few cases of champagne. On 11-08-03 06:12 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:06:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2021174/Have-scientists-crashed-flying-saucer-seabed.html#ixzz1Torn51mJ There is one obvious natural phenomenon that is circular - a volcanic crater - also not unknown on the sea floor. The discoloration could be ejecta carried by the current. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Millennium Falcon or Odd Sea Floor Formation
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through to get a few cases of champagne. They sought cognac also. T
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Let me summarize: If your best argument against this data is the assertion that Lewan and I are incapable of transcribing numbers correctly, or that Levi and the others did not bother to check the published report in NyTekNik to be sure the numbers are right, you have lost this debate. Please stop insulting me with this ridiculous assertion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Millennium Falcon or Odd Sea Floor Formation
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: The shape was found at the bottom of the Gulf of Bothnia during a search for a sunken wreck which contained several cases of champagne. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through to get a few cases of champagne. Did you see they are selling some bottle for 20,000 euros? Who would be so dumb as to pay that much for liquor from 1907? See: http://www.oceanexplorer.se/index.html It does not seem to be very profitable though. They are asking for donations. Arthur Clarke said one sure way to lose a fortune is to find sunken treasure. He actually did find undersea treasure, and he lost his shirt recovering it. Quite a story. That was a long time ago. I think the methods of recovering stuff from underwater are cheaper and better now. See http://www.shipofgoldinfo.com http://www.shipofgoldinfo.com/?gclid=CPDVzYmYtKoCFVAD2godVz2Pyw - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
At 05:57 PM 8/3/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/8/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: I've done a great deal of research on this topic. Problem is that mere research is not enough, because you need to be able to do your own conclusions from data and that includes reading other people's mind from between the lines. This is very difficult, because we have always only partial knowledge from other people's mind and there is not much visible words in between lines, but this is also the most difficult and most advanced task what human brain can perform, so that it can phenomenally well construct good working theory of other people's mind and real intentions although data is grossly insufficient. It's what normal people do all the time, Jouni. Sure, it can easily be flawed. It takes experience. Most of what I've written, though, is not about other people's minds. I came to a conclusion of fraud, defined as wilful deception, after seeing a lot of evidence for it, which I was always explaining away, as did others. There is no facts that support your opinion. Jouni, you say what you do not know. I am also done my research and I can say that there is nothing that contradicts the grand scheme (Isotopic ratios are the strongest argument, but I have not seen results of final analysis by Swedish scientists. We have two pieces of evidence on this. We have the results from the Swedish scientists, a preliminary report, showing no isotopic anomalies. And we have Rossi's claim, backed now by some charts with no explanation that Krivit carried away. Strongest argument? Strongest argument for what? I'm focusing on heat. Period. Large amounts of heat. Small amounts, you must be aware, could have chemical explanations. Krivit also stated in his #3 report that Nickel-62 enrichment is extremely expensive, but I think that he does not know what he is saying), but I admit that I need to dig perhaps too deep into Rossi's mind. He knows what he's saying. More likely, though, Rossi wasn't careful and made yet another mistake. Jouni, what was your education? Therefore I am only 40 sure that E-Cat is part of reality! It is unscientific to say that I am 70% sure that E-Cat is real. It is better to say that I am 40 sure that E-Cat is real!, what meaans that I am ready to bet for 40 euros that E-Cat is real. You bet 40 euros, I bet 1. Okay? Jouni, you don't know how to read what I've been writing, much less understand what's going on with the Rossi reactor, and you are not careful about what you write. 40 sure doesn't express any particular level of surety. But if the payoff were 1, it would express a highly level of confidence. How sure? 40 sure. Right? Now, if you assessed the probability at 70%, rationally you would bet 40 euros against a lesser amount from me. Suppose my bet is X euros. Forget the charity thing, it complicates it. Game theory for 40 at stake. Expected position: Rossi real: 0.7 (40 + X) Rosse unreal: 0.3 (0) Overall expectation: 28 + 0.7 X. It's even to make the bet if X = $17.14. However, my position, and you have to understand that I'm not willing to bet on Rossi unreal, there are way to many unknowns, and I've never claimed that the E-cat is unreal. What I've been claiming is that Rossi has fraudulently exaggerated the tests (mostly by allowing others to make assumptions that favor him, and he obviously encouraged that), and that, further, he appears not to have solved the reliability problem -- assuming he has anything at all. So what I'd bet on would be that he fails to deliver by a certain deadline. Notice, as well, that fraud does not mean that he fails to deliver. It's not surprising, I suppose, that some people aren't able to parse this. Fraud only means that he misrepresented the demonstrations, or deliberately conducted them in a certain way. He put himself in a position where he must complete development under the gun, and he claims to be working 18-hour days. He may well be! These are the conditions that lead me to expect he is likely to fail. It's not exactly the fraud. The fraud indicates a kind of desperation, if it's not just a habit of exaggeration. (This fraud is a kind of exaggeration. It's not even necessarily illegal, in business it's called puffery. But it can be illegal under some conditions, where the false claim is a crucial element of the transaction.) It is sad that I do not have confidence to bet 400 euros, because several people would take the bet, because they are absolutely sure that cold fusion was debunked in 1989 by MIT hot fusion researchers. Several people has already promised to eat their hat and if it is not a straw hat, it is not very healthy for you. Look, I know that case, extremely well. They are wrong, but that's not the point. A bet must be based on a specific outcome, or it's a formula for endless and regressive argument. Rational bets (also called investments)
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
“Ps. However, I will condemn Mills crack pot theory as false, because he is explaining cold fusion effect by dark matter. This is very feeble argument, because there is no such thing as dark matter or at least, we do not have any evidence that supports that hypothesis! http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2004/CP/b400402g Leif Holmlid : snipRydberg Matter has recently been proposed to be part of the dark matter in the Universe, to be the source of the so called UIR emission bands from interstellar space and to give rise to the Faraday rotation in intergalactic space.snip Mills crack pot theory may be correct. On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: 2011/8/3 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com: Considering Jouni's recent challenge: ...I will challenge you for 40 euros that Rossi does not do a fraud. If E-Cat is true, you pay 40 euros to charity, and if not I pay 40 euros for charity. Perhaps Charles and Hope should set a realistic time-table or deadline for when fraud should be officially declared. End of the year 2011 is reasonable deadline for scientific validation of Rossi's Cold Fusion technology. I think that Rossi is reasonable enough person that even if he fails with commercialization with his own efforts, he does not keep partially working technology only by himself in order to perfect it in unforeseeable future. This is why Randell Mills is a ethical criminal, because he has had so long time working cold fusion device and he has refused to bring it to public even though his commercialization efforts has not borne any fruits for several years. Of course there is that possible explanation that Mills does not have any new and ground breaking scientific evidence, but we should not condemn people as fraudsters without proper evidence. - Jouni Ps. However, I will condemn Mills crack pot theory as false, because he is explaining cold fusion effect by dark matter. This is very feeble argument, because there is no such thing as dark matter or at least, we do not have any evidence that supports that hypothesis!
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
At 04:01 PM 8/3/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-08-02 06:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I now conclude that Rossi is a fraud. He may be finding some excess heat, but his demonstrations and comments amount to fraud anyway. Exaggerating his results is a form of fraud, and that kind of fraud has happened before. Come to think of it, possibly with Rossi. It's not criminal fraud, as far as I know. He can tell the public any story he wants, it's not illegal to lie to the public. Yes it is, if they're potential investors. Nope. Generally, investors and the one receiving the investment will sign a contract, and this contract will typically declare that all representations made outside the contract are null and void. Yes, this means that whatever the used-car salesman tells you about that used car means nothing. All binding representations will be in the contract. I'm amazed how many people don't realize this. Goes to show how poor our educational systems are when it comes to stuff that is actually important, like contract law. Remember studying any contract law in high school? I sure don't! And if this is a fraud, and if the investors in Defkalion really exist, then somebody's been doing something illegal, that's for sure. Nonsense. Defkalion has entered into a contract for the delivery of something that didn't exist at the time of the execution of the contract. I'm quite sure that the contract provides for the contingency of failure to deliver. (But maybe the laws are different in Greece, and you can tell stockholders anything you want...) Defkalion is responsible for what Defkalion tells its stockholders. Rossi is not responsible for that! He's responsible for what he puts in writing in his contract with Defkalion. Rossi has not taken any investment, so it's moot. He's apparently taken some money from Ampenergo, but without knowing what that money was for, and what representations were made to them, it's impossible to judge it. What I'd expect Defkalion to tell its investors is that it has entered into a contract for the purchase of Rossi reactors. They might state that they hope that this will be a lucrative business. If they are right, great. If not, well, they made a mistake. Mistake is not fraud, not usually. Judging whether or not they exercised due diligence (i.e., they could be accused of negligence, of failing to exercise a fiduciary duty) would be awfully difficult without knowing exactly what they've done. And we don't. My sense, though, is that they have spent only a tiny fraction of what has been committed, and they are merely preparing for the hoped-for delivery.
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
At 04:12 PM 8/3/2011, vorl bek wrote: On 11-08-02 06:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I now conclude that Rossi is a fraud. Rossi is probably certain that his device will produce miraculous amounts of power, but he needs to get just a few small engineering details right before it does, and he is sure he can do it by October. OK, maybe he faked a few demos. So what? The e-cat will surely be ready in time. Yeah, this is more or less my idea of what's going on. He may even have some basis for thinking this. However, it's not enough to get some demonstration of miraculous amounts of power. That's happened with cold fusion. Much more often, though, the experiments show a significant power, well above noise, but still way below levels necessary for practical applications. And the reliability sucks. I.e., for no apparent reason, one experiment will show much more power than another. This should be made clear: that kind of phenomenon doesn't mean that the effect is not real. It means that the conditions are poorly understood or not controllable. I was myself convinced regarding cold fusion by a very consistent experimental result: helium is produced, measured blind, in Pons-Fleischmann type cells, in amounts correlated with the excess heat, within experimental error at the value for deuterium fusion (which is the same value, due to fuel/ash mass difference, no matter what the mechanism, and the mechanism is probably not what we'd think of as d-d fusion.) In those experiments, the dead cells, the ones that don't produce excess heat, become excellent controls, otherwise as identical as they could be made! But the unreliability is fatal to commercial application. Rossi may have seen some truly spectacular amounts of heat. That doesn't mean that he's necessarily ready for a commercial product, and, indeed, he might be running on that belief: It's almost ready now!
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I came to a conclusion of fraud, defined as wilful deception, after seeing a lot of evidence for it, which I was always explaining away, as did others. If I thought there could be the slightest possibility that Rossi and Defkalion were not committing fraud, I think I'd keep my mouth shut. After all, this is one of the definitive forums for cold fusion; and, if you are wrong and the company is worth billions in a few years, they might seek damages if not retribution for those who judged poorly and defamed their name. Just a little advice. T
RE: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
From Abd: This should be made clear: that kind of phenomenon doesn't mean that the effect is not real. It means that the conditions are poorly understood or not controllable. ... But the unreliability is fatal to commercial application. Rossi may have seen some truly spectacular amounts of heat. That doesn't mean that he's necessarily ready for a commercial product, and, indeed, he might be running on that belief: It's almost ready now! Pretty close to my thoughts on the matter as well. If anything, Rossi is a showman. Abd can correct me if I error here, but where I may disagree with him might be on the matter concerning the data generated from the 18 hour test. The figures recorded may be perfectly valid, just as Jed has been saying for the umpteenth time. Perhaps Rossi was having a good day and his testy eCats were cooperating. In fact, maybe Rossi's eCats really do cooperate MOST of the time, but not enough to warrant (er... risk) obliging pesky reporters with a continuous string demonstrations simply to put their suspicions at ease. Lately, I tend to suspect that while Rossi's eCats might not necessarily be reliable enough for prime-time commercialization, the contraptions may be VERY close to being fully predictable, and that's what Ross sees: The perception (the VISION) that they are almost there. For Rossi: Surely by October I'll have it in the can. We should hope. In terms of developing brand new software for prime time and with a deadline looming over one's head, it's been my experience that the final chapter of a project can take the longest period of time to complete. You know everything works as advertised. You've tested it over and over... but damnit! ...why does the application still have a random tendency to crash between 7:30 and 8:00 on Sunday evening when hardly anyone is using it! What the hell is clobbering it! Yada...yada... And then when it's finally is placed into production, that's when you REALLY find the errors! Don't worry. Your customers will describe all of its faults in meticulous detail... and why had you not tested for such-and-such a contingency. Surely you must have realized that such-and-such was bound to happen! I'm not at all surprised that Rossi claims he has been working 18 hours-a-day. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: a new essay re the E-cat and its inventor
Thank you dear Abd! Please let me know news about Birtukan Simone, how is she learning? Is she reading books? That is the problem with my grandchildren who had been playing with the PC from the age of 3 and prefer images and PC games to reading a good book. Peter. On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 11:46 AM 8/3/2011, Peter Gluck wrote: My dear friends, Recently I have not contributed to the discussions here. However my opinion is here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**com/2011/08/impossible-** intelligence-test-and.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/impossible-intelligence-test-and.html htt**p://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/**2011/08/impossible-** intelligence-test-and.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/impossible-intelligence-test-and.html Sometimes the events are far too interesting. That's a great essay, Peter, I highly recommend it. Thanks. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report
Thanks, Abd, for being so forthright with Jed about his inability to integrate all the bad news about the Rossi debacle -- I'm interested to see how the remaining publicly committed believers are attempting to tough it out together, defiantly clinging to every tattered shred of argument -- being sincerely wrong is a really profound learning process -- I wonder if there is any evidence that the investors are losing faith... I'm paying very little attention to any of the cold fusion stuff now, assessing that nothing yet is independently reproducible to refute the null hypothesis of no anomalies... In mutual service, Rich
