Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion and the Star Trek Economy
interesting vision. basic income is a liberal version of the basic public interest services : basic education, transport, food, culture... it can be criticized because nothing prevent you to use basic income to gamble on horses or drink, instead of educating your kids or building your competence... it can be appreciated, because individual can decide to invest more in one domain than another, and people who don't use the public system infrastructure, keep their cash to pay for better service elsewhere. that is politic vision of the society. for a french man, you look so strange in US. and i suppose we look so strange to you. discussion about grid, autonomy, infrastructure, is really revealing that strong difference between crowded kingdom and pioneer desertic self-managed pioneer countries. roland benabou have good article on that http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers.html eg http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/beliefs%20qje%201%20web.pdf and many other you can undestand why, despite the fact that today the fairness is quite the same in US and europe, our vision are so different... even our religion, electricity, transportation, cities, government, are different and this is connected to the big differences of belief... US people cannot imagine how violent for us is the globalization that impose your pioneer culture to our kingdom culture, and maybe is it the same for US people... 2011/12/15 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com economy
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion and the Star Trek Economy
just a link http://davecline.posterous.com/the-implications-of-free-energy some good ideas 2011/12/14 Zell, Chris chrisz...@wetmtv.com
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: http://www.heise.de/tp/**artikel/35/35803/1.htmlhttp://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35803/1.html English translation http://translate.google.com/**translate?sl=detl=enjs=n** prev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=**2eotf=1u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.** heise.de%2Ftp%2Fartikel%2F35%**2F35803%2F1.htmlact=urlhttp://translate.google.com/translate?sl=detl=enjs=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Ftp%2Fartikel%2F35%2F35803%2F1.htmlact=url Video is in english. Some vorts quoted. The beginning of the second video shows (again) that the valve to the water trap was closed. So, now we know it was closed at two separate times during the time it was supposed to be collecting all the liquid water. The shadows clearly indicate the time was well before 6 (probably 2:00 or so). It kind of undermines confidence in the engineer's, shall we say, attention to detail.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up with a plausible method. After all this time, I do not think any skeptic will come up with anything. At least, not with anything that can be tested or falsified. I imagine you're trying to convince yourself that this is true by repeating it ad nauseam. But it's clearly not true. There are not one, but many methods suggested to produce what Rossi observed without nuclear reactions, and all of them are more plausible than Rossi's claimed explanation, and all are falsifiable by a long self-sustained run. The best one is courtesy of the Max Planck Institute paper, cited here yesterday, that shows that reversible metal hydride reactions can be used to store close to a MJ/kg at about 450C. The only thing that is not falsifiable is your absolute conviction that Rossi is right. I wonder if you will continue to insist daily that the Oct 6 demo is irrefutable if there are no ecats warming your (or anyone else's) house or factory, or powering any cars, or even heard of by the man in the street, in 5 years time. We will simply have to be patient to find out. Claims that you can fake it with some stage magic trick that some person somewhere might know are not valid, in my opinion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:entanglement broadcasting
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This experiment supports my contention that entanglement, a key mechanism in the cold fusion process, can be broadcast from one entangled ensemble to induce entanglement in another ensemble even at high temperatures. The experiment shows that entanglement is a subtle effect, that is very difficult to observe, let alone have practical implications. Since cold fusion doesn't use diamonds or femtosecond lasers, it rather seems to contradict your contention that entanglement is a key mechanism in cold fusion. Interpreting it as support, shows is that the bar on what is considered support among cold fusion advocates is set pretty low.
[Vo]:The first half of the third part of my Cold Fusion History.
My dear friends, please read: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-cold-fusion-history-iii.html This is a very personal (I apologize!) and absolutely sincere writing. In the previous part: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/05/my-cold-fusion-history-ii.html the most tragic one, I have explained why this series is not a chronology but a rather negative kairosology. I hope that I will have time to write a last episode- the triumph of New Energy during some cold winter evening sitting near to our LENR Heater Model.? Peter http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-cold-fusion-history-iii.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:entanglement broadcasting
Axil Axil wrote: I think I can safely say no one understands quantum mechanics, the late physicist Richard Feynman once famously explained. Does anyone know if and how entanglement effects are explained in stochastic electrodynamics? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up with a plausible method. Jed, your memory must be even worse than mine. I mean it. Take your analysis here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf You ignore the central fact about this test which is that the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no input power. It was too hot to touch. It burned an observer. This is irrefutable proof that the effect is real. Instead of explaining this, or even trying to deal with it, you raise nitpicking objections to irrelevant details. I take this as tacit admission on your part that the effect is real. Your paper is the best proof that even thoughtful, careful skeptics have no reasons to doubt this claim. Obviously, people who think that ultrasonic humidifier mist can be pushed through a long hose never did have any valid reasons. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion and the Star Trek Economy
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: just a link http://davecline.posterous.com/the-implications-of-free-energy some good ideas I disagree with one of the author's main points, which is: Although it might seem that way on first ponder, unfortunately free energy would fail to release humanity from those ancient struggles of the possession of natural resources (and the land on which they exist), and the control of the world’s monies and ideas. I do not know about monies and ideas, but with cold fusion you can have all the natural resources and land you want. You can have practically unlimited amounts. Resources can be extracted anywhere given enough energy. You can aggressively recycle materials from landfills. You can extract ores from paydirt they would never be economical today. Many elements can be extracted from seawater. Regarding land, as I pointed out in my book, with indoor food factories, the US could grow all of the food we consume in an area the size of greater New York City. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion tells a reader : visit us
If they are going to allow visits, they should start by inviting Stremmenos. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Jed, You should read the report you cite again. He doesn't ignore that the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours. He takes it head-on. Go straight to pages 8 and 9. Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:31:17 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up with a plausible method. Jed, your memory must be even worse than mine. I mean it. Take your analysis here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf You ignore the central fact about this test which is that the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no input power. It was too hot to touch. It burned an observer. This is irrefutable proof that the effect is real. Instead of explaining this, or even trying to deal with it, you raise nitpicking objections to irrelevant details. I take this as tacit admission on your part that the effect is real. Your paper is the best proof that even thoughtful, careful skeptics have no reasons to doubt this claim. Obviously, people who think that ultrasonic humidifier mist can be pushed through a long hose never did have any valid reasons. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: You ignore the central fact about this test which is that the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no input power. Big deal. It weighs 100 kg. Ten kg is enough to stay at boiling for 40 hours, without any nuclear reactions. It was too hot to touch. It burned an observer. Which observer was that? This is irrefutable proof that the effect is real. No, it's not even suggestive of nuclear reactions. You can do at least 10 times better with chemistry.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: You should read the report you cite again. He doesn't ignore that the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours. He takes it head-on. Go straight to pages 8 and 9. I saw that. That is an attempt to explain the Tout thermocouple. It cannot explain palpable heat over the entire surface of the reactor lasting for four hours. That's preposterous! Putting iron or any other material in the walls or around the cell cannot do that for several reasons: 1. Stored energy can only cause the temperature to decline monotonically, very rapidly at first (Newton's law of cooling). Yet this heat increased during the event. 2. You cannot heat the iron around the cell or in the call walls up to 543°C with electric heaters inside the cell. They would have to reach much higher temperatures than any electric heater is capable of. 3. The data shows that the reactor cools in ~40 min. when the power is cut. That is the actual, measured limit of stored heat with this system, at these temperatures and inputs. You cannot magically change it to 4 hours. The data shows a rapid decline in temperature. You cannot magically change that to an increase. Sorry to be harsh, but I took that section on p. 8 as politician-style evasion, along the lines of we have to say something here, so let's fill in the blank with what we know just ain't so. This analysis cannot be taken seriously. It is full of gaping holes and impossibilities. I realize that Heffner does not see it that way, but I do. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Stored energy can only cause the temperature to decline monotonically, very rapidly at first (Newton's law of cooling). Yet this heat increased during the event. Not true. If the inside is hotter than the outside, the outside can heat up, just from stored energy. Try this: Get an oil-filled space heater, and plug it in for about 5 or 10 minutes, then measure the surface temperature. It will continue to increase after it is turned off. With water-vapor in equilibrium, it is even easier to explain. If the inside of the container is well above boiling, then the temperature of the water/steam will be completely determined by the pressure. So, if the pressure increases as steam is formed, the temperature will increase. Moreover, chemical fuel can produce heat, which could increase the temperature. An increase in temperature, by itself, is no evidence of nuclear reactions. And the energy density is but a tiny fraction of the best chemical energy densities. 2. You cannot heat the iron around the cell or in the call walls up to 543°C with electric heaters inside the cell. They would have to reach much higher temperatures than any electric heater is capable of. But the iron in the walls accounts for only a small part of the 100 kg mass. The inner part could easily consist of 30 - 50 kg of thermal mass heated up to hundreds of degrees. About 15 kg of metal hydride could store the 13 MJ necessary to produce all the observations in that demo. 3. The data shows that the reactor cools in ~40 min. when the power is cut. No. It doesn't. It cools by 10C in 40 minutes. And that's when the coolant flow rate is doubled. And it's at the end of the run, when most of the stored energy will have already been drawn down. For this oft-repeated argument to be valid, it would have to be done at the beginning, not the end, of the run, with the same flow rate. That is the actual, measured limit of stored heat with this system, at these temperatures and inputs. No. It's not, because you don't know the temperature of the inner core. At the end of the run it may have been 200C or less, but at the beginning at 500C or more. Those two temperatures give the same temperature of the water-steam mixture. To get the limit of energy storage, you have to see how fast it cools *right after it's heated up*, not 3.25 hours later. You cannot magically change it to 4 hours. The data shows a rapid decline in temperature. You cannot magically change that to an increase. There is nothing magic about starting at a higher inner temperature. That's just simple physics. And there's nothing magic about part of a system increasing in temperature, even if the average temperature decreases. That's just physics. To some, simple physics may look like magic. But if you've studied physics, it just looks normal. Your friend has a famous quote about that. This analysis cannot be taken seriously. It is full of gaping holes and impossibilities. I realize that Heffner does not see it that way, but I do. You are in the minority.
[Vo]:E-cat impact
Found this: http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/267375/20111215/cold-fusion-impact-rossi-s-e-cat.htm -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
The fact that it remained hot is all the proof you need. I don't get it. If there was no nuclear reaction and all of the energy came from thermal storage, then in deed the device will stay hot for a long time. However if all the heat came from a nuclear reaction, I'd expect it to cool down very fast once the reaction has been stopped. Are you implying that this particular kind of reaction exhibits the exact behavior as thermal storage when shut down? (i.e. cooling off at a very slow rate due to some continuing reaction despite H2 being shut down and whatever it supposedly takes to stop fusion). Since the details of the reaction are unknown - wouldn't that be an argument in favor of storage rather than against?
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Dec 15, 2011, at 5:31 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up with a plausible method. Jed, your memory must be even worse than mine. I mean it. Take your analysis here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf You ignore the central fact about this test which is that the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no input power. It was too hot to touch. It burned an observer. This is irrefutable proof that the effect is real. Instead of explaining this, or even trying to deal with it, you raise nitpicking objections to irrelevant details. I take this as tacit admission on your part that the effect is real. Your paper is the best proof that even thoughtful, careful skeptics have no reasons to doubt this claim. Obviously, people who think that ultrasonic humidifier mist can be pushed through a long hose never did have any valid reasons. - Jed Either your memory is bad or you set very different standards of credibility for Rossi's claims than you do for the plausibility of faking methods. Your choice of my paper as an example is diversionary because (1) it only deals with one test and (2) it assumes a configuration with no fraud, no chemical energy being provided, a configuration with a logical reason behind it. That said, I think you should read the analysis again. All that is required to boil water and burn people for the test duration is an appropriate thermal mass and thermal resistance. The gross calculations of those were provided early on. Later I provided Graph 2S, referenced on page 13 as: http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Graph2S.png which demonstrates an output of between 1500 W and and 750 W between time 150 minutes and time 476 minutes. I'd say sustaining a thermal output of between 1500 W and 750 W, or even half that, *without even using chemical energy*, just thermal mass, is enough to boil water and burn observers for 4 hours. Not all the water needs be boiled that was claimed for your conditions to be met. Also, the position of the Tout thermocouple, as well as the horizontal position of the heat exchanger, in the Oct test is not nitpicking. These things are critical to the interpretation of the results. If you assume fraud and add the possibility of chemical energy, which is feasible by numerous means, and only the use of the 30x30x30 cm interior box, then it is even feasible to produce the *claimed* energy output which was assumed but not proven. Even batteries can do that. For example see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg58712.html Pyrolysis of carbon based fuels is another feasible method. See: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg56339.html Don't bother saying people saw inside the box. No one saw inside the 30x30x30 cm interior box, shown in photos 1 and 2 in my paper, much less inside the supposed reactor chambers. There was not even proof given such reaction chambers even existed. As for the other public tests, the *assumption* that pure steam was being provided makes the tests invalid as proof of principle. You apparently think waving your arms in the air and convincing yourself amounts to some kind of proof, or even has any meaningful bearing, regarding what did or did not, or could or could not, have happened in the Rossi tests. There remains doubt. I think even you have some doubts. There is no actual proof of anything - even though that proof could have easily been provided if Rossi cared to do so. Watching this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9I_CJti-RU from 10:26 to 16:09, where the Petroldragon fiasco is reviewed, provides sufficient reason to have some cautious reservation regarding Rossi's present results. Numerous methods of faking the Rossi demonstrations have been discussed, methods just as credible as Rossi's claims that is. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. NASA certainly does not find the tests credible proof. There clearly are numerous credible ways for such short running tests to be erroneous or faked. The burden of proof is not on NASA or anyone else to provide faking methods credible to everyone. Certainly various faking methods have been presented which are credible to me. I have seen neither proof nor disproof publicly provided that Rossi has anything worth investment. The burden of proof is on Rossi. What is necessary is Rossi's credibility, not the credibility of specific faking mechanisms. What is shocking is the assumption on the part of so many people that Rossi's claims are true without the proof that could have been so easily provided by Rossi if he cared. If this turns out to be a boondoggle then it will damage the credibility of the field and the serious researchers who
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion tells a reader : visit us
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If they are going to allow visits, they should start by inviting Stremmenos. LOL!
Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact
Meanwhile, Rossi continues to enrich the English language. His latest contribution is cinfudential. I assume it has something to do with Elmer Fudd but I am not sure what. Andrea Rossi December 14th, 2011 at 6:02 PM Dear Paolo Accomazzi: I will publish the theory when I will have the protection of a granted patent, because the theory indroduces to the cinfudential issues of the technology. Warm Regards, A.R. From his blog
Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact
Dear Mary, it is not elegant to pick such minor things.Do not forget what has told Buffon about Style. The letters u, i and o are adjacent on QWERTY so this is a natural typo. I do similar things when in hurry, my cataract is of great help. Please focus on the essentials. Peter On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Meanwhile, Rossi continues to enrich the English language. His latest contribution is cinfudential. I assume it has something to do with Elmer Fudd but I am not sure what. Andrea Rossi December 14th, 2011 at 6:02 PM Dear Paolo Accomazzi: I will publish the theory when I will have the protection of a granted patent, because the theory indroduces to the cinfudential issues of the technology. Warm Regards, A.R. From his blog -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2
Andrea Rossi December 15th, 2011 at 2:46 AM Dear Aussie Guy: To make 1 thermal MWh/h of energy you will need 160 kWh/h (thermal or electric). This system will yield 300-330 kWh/h of electric energy. This, with the best available conversion system we got so far. In sustained mode this can be upgraded, but only in a real scenario we can get real numbers. For now, conservatively, is better take these numbers. Warm Regards, A.R. Dear Gherardo: If you make electric energy using electric energy in our system the guaranteed COP is 2, so far. - - - - I haven't run the numbers, but that seems marginally economical to me. Of course, you still get COP 4 of (lower grade) heat out of it, so as a mixed system it may be OK. (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
RE: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2
Obviously, you just buy three 1MW reactors, and feed the output of the first to the inputs of the other two. Voila! COP=4 Simply buy 15 E-Cats, feed 1 into 2, into 4, into 8 and you'll have a COP of 16. Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:39:17 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: a...@well.com Subject: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2 Andrea Rossi December 15th, 2011 at 2:46 AM Dear Aussie Guy: To make 1 thermal MWh/h of energy you will need 160 kWh/h (thermal or electric). This system will yield 300-330 kWh/h of electric energy. This, with the best available conversion system we got so far. In sustained mode this can be upgraded, but only in a real scenario we can get real numbers. For now, conservatively, is better take these numbers. Warm Regards, A.R. Dear Gherardo: If you make electric energy using electric energy in our system the guaranteed COP is 2, so far. - - - - I haven't run the numbers, but that seems marginally economical to me. Of course, you still get COP 4 of (lower grade) heat out of it, so as a mixed system it may be OK. (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I haven't run the numbers, but that seems marginally economical to me. Of course, you still get COP 4 of (lower grade) heat out of it, so as a mixed system it may be OK. ** ** (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!) Rossi seems to be claiming he is close to coupling his machine to a generator. If he does, that should make an interesting, if unnecessary, demo. I wonder if it will run more than four hours.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Your choice of my paper as an example is diversionary because (1) it only deals with one test . . . I have dealt with the other tests, separately, as have others. Some of them are also definitive. The last one was not! and (2) it assumes a configuration with no fraud, no chemical energy being provided . . . Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims of stage magic is not falsifiable. I have dealt with chemical energy by pointing out that in my opinion it is impossible to make a chemical fuel system this small that puts out this much energy. You disagree, but do not accuse me of ignoring these issues. We have to agree to disagree on these issues. That does not mean I have forgotten anything. It just means that if you are right, I am wrong. . . . which demonstrates an output of between 1500 W and and 750 W between time 150 minutes and time 476 minutes. That estimate is far too low. The heat radiating from the reactor plus the heat captured in the cooling loop far exceeds that. Note. For some of the details I described here, I assume the cooling loop TC may be recording incorrectly but it does reflect the overall profile and relative heat output at different times. When the heat increases, the second TC shows a higher temperature. When the TC zero intercept is 40 min. away, that is how long it takes to cool down. Actually I'm pretty sure the cooling loop TC is correct to within a fraction of degree, but it does not matter. None of the instrument readings matter. That is fortunate, because Rossi' instrumentation is lousy, as we all know. - Jed
[Vo]:Crowd-funded test? List of pro-LENR scientists
A couple of articles on my daily scan : A Crowd Funding Approach to E-Cat Testing http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/12/1499/ ... One idea that has been brought up on this site recently that might serve to break the deadlock is that interested people might purchase a 1 MW plant through a crowdfunding project, and then test the E-Cat plant themselves. Yesterday I send this message to Rossi on his JONP site: Dear Andrea, There has been some discussion on my E-Cat World Site about the possibility of creating a consortium to receive donations from people for the purchase of a 1 MW plant for the purpose of testing and evaluation. evaluation. Once the testing was complete the plant could be donated to a needy organization in need of heat perhaps a hospital, desalination project, etc. (you could choose the final recipient) Would this be something you would approve of and cooperate with? Best regards, Frank Acland Rossi responded: Dear Frank Acland: A Customer who buys a plant has the right to make all the tests he wants, obviously. Warm Regards, A.R. That's all a bit too expensive with a 1MW ... they added on $1M for shipping and testing. -== http://earthbagbuilding.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/e-cat-update-lenr-confirmed-by-mainstream-scientists/ E-Cat Update: LENR Confirmed by Mainstream ScientistsDecember 14, 2011 by Owen Geiger ... list of scientists : no surprises ... Vortex list (active discussion among scientists and engineers, although the quality of the site is currently hampered by trolls) Just one, actually? (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Meanwhile, Rossi continues to enrich the English language. His latest contribution is cinfudential. It is a typo for crying out loud. Don't be such a pill. Rossi's English is probably better than your Italian, so do not criticize. As Peter said, this is inelegant. It is uncalled for. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2
Or, if Rossi's claims of taming the wild cat really have merit, it's much more simple. If it needs 160 kw electrical input, feed 160 kw of the 300-330 output, and have a 140 to 170 kW generator with no electrical input. COP = infinity. And a TRUE self-sustaining device exists. From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:47:41 -0600 Obviously, you just buy three 1MW reactors, and feed the output of the first to the inputs of the other two. Voila! COP=4 Simply buy 15 E-Cats, feed 1 into 2, into 4, into 8 and you'll have a COP of 16. Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:39:17 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: a...@well.com Subject: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2 Andrea Rossi December 15th, 2011 at 2:46 AM Dear Aussie Guy: To make 1 thermal MWh/h of energy you will need 160 kWh/h (thermal or electric). This system will yield 300-330 kWh/h of electric energy. This, with the best available conversion system we got so far. In sustained mode this can be upgraded, but only in a real scenario we can get real numbers. For now, conservatively, is better take these numbers. Warm Regards, A.R. Dear Gherardo: If you make electric energy using electric energy in our system the guaranteed COP is 2, so far. - - - - I haven't run the numbers, but that seems marginally economical to me. Of course, you still get COP 4 of (lower grade) heat out of it, so as a mixed system it may be OK. (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
[Vo]:WAY OFF TOPIC Baby Seal Enters House, Sleeps On Couch
This is unbearably cute. Baby Seal Enters House, Sleeps On Couch (PHOTOS) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/14/baby-seal-house-couch_n_1146980.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Crowd-funded test? List of pro-LENR scientists
Spending a million bucks for this is crazy. The machine will be obsolete in six months. Unless you have a need for 1 MW of heat, it will be useless. If you have $1 million burning a hole in your pocket, give it to me that I will have this thing replicated in no time. People such as Miley could replicate most of it in a short time if they had ~$50,000 in funding. Or $5,000. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Crowd-funded test? List of pro-LENR scientists
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Spending a million bucks for this is crazy. The machine will be obsolete in six months. Unless you have a need for 1 MW of heat, it will be useless. If you have $1 million burning a hole in your pocket, give it to me that I will have this thing replicated in no time. People such as Miley could replicate most of it in a short time if they had ~$50,000 in funding. Or $5,000. I can't believe that Miley can't get $5K or even $100K of funds a year. That's chump change for any large company. And you say he can give a convincing demo. I don't get it. Why doesn't SAIC for example, jump on it? As for testing a so-called megawatt plant, that's just nonsense. There is absolutely NOTHING that you can do with that, with respect to verifying the principle, that you can't do more easily and faster with a simple off the shelf old type E-cat (what I call a plumber's nightmare model) that Rossi showed almost a YEAR AGO.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion tells a reader : visit us
Am 14.12.2011 21:05, schrieb Mary Yugo: On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Charly Sistovaris charlysi...@gmail.comwrote: That's in Athens, not Xanthi which is a town in the North. You often bring up good arguments, but the bickering is a tiresome. I simply copied the information given by Defkalion and indeed it's Athens. Questioning the veracity of Defkalion is hardly bickering. Nothing they ever said ever checked out! And much of it, for example their self destruct mechanism and the design for Hyperion power plants that rely for continuing to operate on a telemetry link with their mothership that needs to be continuously functional, seem fanciful at best. This principle was invented by Mike Brady years ago. Description in detail is here, unfortunately in german language. http://magnetmotoren.info/interview-mit-perendev-motor-erfinder/ Peter
Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact
I'd be dead without spell checker. I suspect I'm not alone on that. I wonder if MY is taking lessons from Mr. Krivit. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Crowd-funded test? List of pro-LENR scientists
On 2011-12-15 19:08, Jed Rothwell wrote: If you have $1 million burning a hole in your pocket, give it to me that I will have this thing replicated in no time. People such as Miley could replicate most of it in a short time if they had ~$50,000 in funding. Or $5,000. Would he really be able to replicate sustained kW-level excess heat (of course, with watt-level input) with just $50,000 in funding or so? Serious question. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact
It was joke-- pls. lighten up!
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion tells a reader : visit us
Am 15.12.2011 19:12, schrieb Peter Heckert: Am 14.12.2011 21:05, schrieb Mary Yugo: On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Charly Sistovaris charlysi...@gmail.comwrote: That's in Athens, not Xanthi which is a town in the North. You often bring up good arguments, but the bickering is a tiresome. I simply copied the information given by Defkalion and indeed it's Athens. Questioning the veracity of Defkalion is hardly bickering. Nothing they ever said ever checked out! And much of it, for example their self destruct mechanism and the design for Hyperion power plants that rely for continuing to operate on a telemetry link with their mothership that needs to be continuously functional, seem fanciful at best. This principle was invented by Mike Brady years ago. Description in detail is here, unfortunately in german language. http://magnetmotoren.info/interview-mit-perendev-motor-erfinder/ BTW, I have better ideas. I would invent a security mechanism that injects an (harmless) acid into the device that destroys and pollutes everything, so that neither by chemical analysis nor by microscopic inspection the working principle can be revealed. I guarantee, everybody who opens the device will find it destroyed, polluted and unusable. The mechanism is constructed in such a way that any hard x-rays or external gamma measurements are detected and it will trigger. This is an absolutely secure method and much cheaper. Peter
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Stored heat can only emerge. It cannot stay hot. It has cool monotonically, according to Newton's law: You're burning the last point I held for Rossi (which was that I wondered whether scientists could be fooled so easily - apparently they can). Newton's law would not be violated, of course. If you heat one side of a homogeneous, iron block (or the inside, for that matter) the other side will heat up gradually until the entire thing reaches equilibrium. Overall it will naturally cool from the moment the heat source is removed - but overall cooling is not what's in question. Thermal conductivity of Iron reduces with rising temperature. Combined with an appropriate insulator its easy to build a heat storage system that yields more or less constant temperatures at a particualr point for a long time after the initial heating at another point has stopped. And, as Joshua Cude already pointed out, with water as the cooling medium being the only thing measured, its even easier. It doesn't have to be especially elaborate or even magic. I'm not saying it is, but it can surely be a really cheap trick.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Dec 15, 2011, at 6:21 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: You should read the report you cite again. He doesn't ignore that the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours. He takes it head-on. Go straight to pages 8 and 9. I saw that. That is an attempt to explain the Tout thermocouple. It cannot explain palpable heat over the entire surface of the reactor lasting for four hours. That's preposterous! Putting iron or any other material in the walls or around the cell cannot do that for several reasons: 1. Stored energy can only cause the temperature to decline monotonically, very rapidly at first (Newton's law of cooling). Yet this heat increased during the event. You apparently have forgotten that thermal pulses from a passive device can be delayed until long after the power is applied. This is evidence of what I was talking about in this thread. Your mind must be going. I think I can recognize this because it is happening to me! I don't think this is a case of projection. I am stunned you are still saying this kind of thing. Maybe you do not understand thermal pulses, so don't accept my data? Do you not understand that the graphs: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph2S.png http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph5S.png http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph6S.png are all from the same simulation, represent consistent data? The maximum thermal flux occurs after the input energy is cut off. This is fully passive heat transfer. The maximum flux occurs after power cutoff. This maximum thermal flux point can be further delayed beyond power cutoff by either choice of other passive materials, or by use of active controls. 2. You cannot heat the iron around the cell or in the call walls up to 543°C with electric heaters inside the cell. They would have to reach much higher temperatures than any electric heater is capable of. Just to be clear, no one is talking about heating the outside box metal envelope. My focus is entirely the inside box, the 30 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm inside box, the insides of which no one has seen. It is easy to place a thermal mass inside this volume that can store and release sufficient energy to meet the requirement of producing some boiling water for 4 hours, especially if phase changing salts are used. Also, small ceramic kilns are commonly available that reach over 1200°C. Graph 6S shows a maximum internal temperature of about 1000°C being reached at time 270 minutes, 11 minutes before converting power to the frequency generator. 3. The data shows that the reactor cools in ~40 min. when the power is cut. That is the actual, measured limit of stored heat with this system, at these temperatures and inputs. That is merely a measure of the stored heat and thermal conductivity at the end of the test. I have stated the data indicates there is an active control mechanism by which the thermal conductivity, or water exposure to the stored heat, is reduced by application of main heater power, or frequency generator power. When the power is reduced the thermal ouput increases. Maximal thermal transfer thus only happens when all power is removed at the end of the run. Water flow rate was supposedly increased then too. Heiko Lietz asked Rossi why the output power momentarily rises when input power is cut. Rossi's response was that this is confidential. You cannot magically change it to 4 hours. The data shows a rapid decline in temperature. You cannot magically change that to an increase. It takes no magic - a mere calculation, which I provided. This is not magic or even arm waving. Sorry to be harsh, It's OK. Why should you follow special rules? 8^) but I took that section on p. 8 as politician-style evasion, along the lines of we have to say something here, so let's fill in the blank with what we know just ain't so. I don't know what you are talking about. I provided a calculation example based on simple hypothesis that iron was involved in the thermal mass. Later calculations, simulations, considered other possibilities. Do you see the word suppose? Other assumptions provide explanations closer to the observations. This analysis cannot be taken seriously. It is full of gaping holes and impossibilities. I realize that Heffner does not see it that way, but I do. - Jed The only gaping holes in my opinion are the questions of just where the Tout thermocouple was located during the test, and whether an air pocket in the heat exchanger manifold affected the temperature at the Tout location. Rossi's tests and explanations are full of holes and self contradictions, impossibilities. It is Rossi's tests and explanations that matter. All the blather from the peanut gallery is irrelevant, except possibly to alert the few gullible
Re: [Vo]:Crowd-funded test? List of pro-LENR scientists
At 10:14 AM 12/15/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Would he really be able to replicate sustained kW-level excess heat (of course, with watt-level input) with just $50,000 in funding or so? Serious question. Without the secret Magic Unicorn dust? Probably not.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion tells a reader : visit us
At 10:32 AM 12/15/2011, Peter Heckert wrote: The mechanism is constructed in such a way that any hard x-rays so far, so good ... or external gamma measurements are detected and it will trigger. How can you detect an EXTERNAL gamma measurement? Or do you mean that an attempt to probe the inside from outside with gamma rays? I'm not sure that would give you any useful information anyway.
Re: [Vo]:Crowd-funded test? List of pro-LENR scientists
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I can't believe that Miley can't get $5K or even $100K of funds a year. That's chump change for any large company. Well, he and I have been beating the bushes trying to get funding. Nothing yet. If you know a company with that kind of chump change, please have them contact Miley. The thing you have to realize is, there is enormous opposition to cold fusion because of academic politics. Experiments have not been funded since 1990. A professor or someone in the DoE who requests funding or even talks about cold fusion will be harassed and probably fired. There is zero chance of success. Why sacrifice your career for nothing? Miley and his grad students are doing this for free, in their spare time. It is bootlegged. I do not think they will have any more spare time in the future. They are getting other jobs and commitments. And you say he can give a convincing demo. I don't get it. Why doesn't SAIC for example, jump on it? Feel free to suggest it to them. Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Would he really be able to replicate sustained kW-level excess heat (of course, with watt-level input) with just $50,000 in funding or so? Serious question. I do not know if they can produce that much heat. I suppose that would depend on how much material Ames N. L. can supply. Since Ames as part of the DOE the whole thing may be cut off tomorrow, when someone at headquarters finds out. I doubt anyone else can produce the material. That's the hard part. Although Miley said he is doing a lot of the post-production work himself now. I do not see what difference it makes whether you get 100 W or 5000 W. Heat is heat. As long as it can be measured with high confidence who cares how much? The key thing is that it is controllable and stable. Once you have that scaling up is a trivial matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion tells a reader : visit us
Am 15.12.2011 19:50, schrieb Alan J Fletcher: At 10:32 AM 12/15/2011, Peter Heckert wrote: The mechanism is constructed in such a way that any hard x-rays so far, so good ... or external gamma measurements are detected and it will trigger. How can you detect an EXTERNAL gamma measurement? This is a proprietary secret and not disclosed. It will even detect bad emanations of pathologic sceptics by pheromon analysis and self destroy. As I said, it is an 101% secure mechanism. Or do you mean that an attempt to probe the inside from outside with gamma rays? I'm not sure that would give you any useful information anyway.
Re: [Vo]:Crowd-funded test? List of pro-LENR scientists
I think DKG will have a Hyperion for a demo very soon. Take a few barrels of water, a watch, thermometer and run it with power going through a 3A fuse. Heat a barrel of water in an hour, or a whole pool in a couple of days. If DKG does it right, they'll have a number of scientists and reporters on hand and will be ready to take orders or give a solid estimated time to delivery. As far as replication goes, I am leaning towards the Chan method--I think Rossi's internal heater may be a coil used to vibrate the nanoparticles at a resonate frequency. It should not be that hard to take a tube of MgH2, Cu, Ni, Fe and heat it with a coil/RFG at monitor the reaction for radiation. Maybe $5K worth of equipment. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
At 10:45 AM 12/15/2011, Horace Heffner wrote: Just to be clear, no one is talking about heating the outside box metal envelope. My focus is entirely the inside box, the 30 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm inside box, the insides of which no one has seen. It is easy to place a thermal mass inside this volume that can store and release sufficient energy to meet the requirement of producing some boiling water for 4 hours, especially if phase changing salts are used. Also, small ceramic kilns are commonly available that reach over 1200°C. Graph 6S shows a maximum internal temperature of about 1000°C being reached at time 270 minutes, 11 minutes before converting power to the frequency generator. 30 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm That's much bigger than is shown in Lewan's photo. http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/lewan_DSC_0089_600_a.jpg I'd say that it's 30 cm x 30 cm x 15 cm at MOST, and more likely closer to Rossi's 30 cm x 30 cm x 10 cm. I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate?
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: 3. The data shows that the reactor cools in ~40 min. when the power is cut. That is the actual, measured limit of stored heat with this system, at these temperatures and inputs. That is merely a measure of the stored heat and thermal conductivity at the end of the test. No, also at the beginning, just before the self-sustaining event, around minute 250. Same slope as at the end. The power between 150 and 250 shown in the cooling loop is more or less stable, meaning the thing has reached the terminal temperature. It has achieved a balance between input and output. There is some excess energy around 220 - 250. Since the cooling curve more or less balances the input power curve during this segment, I assume the TC placement is not a big problem. After the self-sustaining event begins, output goes way up, far above the most you can input with electric power. As for the rest of your comments . . . I am not the only one who disagrees with you. So do all of the knowledgeable people I asked to review your paper. I suggest you ask one of them for a critique. Let's leave it at that. I will let you have the last word regarding the rest of these issues. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:entanglement broadcasting
A pretty counter-intuitive phenomenon. So were super-conductivity and lasing. I believe both emission and absorption of radiation can be strongly enhanced in a volume of entangled (coherent) particles - even when it's spatial extent is greater than the radiation wave-length. See: http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2989 Maybe important in crystals? http://www.insidescience.org/research/1-2376 In the Quantum World, Diamonds Can Communicate With Each Other. Oxford physicists using bizarre principle of entanglement to cause a change in a diamond they do not touch. Entanglement has been proven before but what makes the Oxford experiment unique is that concept was demonstrated with substantial solid objects at room temperature. Previous entanglements of matter involved submicroscopic particles, often at cold temperatures. This experiment employed millimeter-scale diamonds, not individual atoms, not gaseous clouds, said Ian Walmsley, professor of experimental physics at Oxford's Clarendon Laboratory, one of the international team of researchers. I think I can safely say no one understands quantum mechanics, the late physicist Richard Feynman once famously explained. This experiment supports my contention that entanglement, a key mechanism in the cold fusion process, can be broadcast from one entangled ensemble to induce entanglement in another ensemble even at high temperatures.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: As for the rest of your comments . . . I am not the only one who disagrees with you. So do all of the knowledgeable people I asked to review your paper. I suggest you ask one of them for a critique. Does he know who these knowledgeable people are? Do we?
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Does he know who these knowledgeable people are? Do we? Cold fusion researchers who know a lot about calorimetry. The usual suspects. Horace is well acquainted with them, and generally held in high regard, I believe. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Does he know who these knowledgeable people are? Do we? Cold fusion researchers who know a lot about calorimetry. The usual suspects. Horace is well acquainted with them, and generally held in high regard, I believe. So these people support your views about the impossibility of storing enough heat during the warmup period in the large Ottoman E-cat of October 6 to account for the results? Do they believe Rossi has accomplished cold fusion/LENR with his device? How do they explain the anemic and deficient tests that Rossi insists on doing instead of the proper and appropriate tests you, Josephson, Celani, and many many others have suggested to him? Do any of the experts you know have a theory about why anyone would buy and accept a leaky, awkward, probably unserviceable, megawatt plant that ran at half power connected to a generator? For what purpose? Why would anyone buy a single one, much less 13? And why, after almost a year since the first demo has lapsed, would Rossi not have thousands of clients instead of one mysterious, anonymous one if his device were real?
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Dec 15, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Your choice of my paper as an example is diversionary because (1) it only deals with one test . . . I have dealt with the other tests, separately, as have others. Some of them are also definitive. The last one was not! and (2) it assumes a configuration with no fraud, no chemical energy being provided . . . Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims of stage magic is not falsifiable. Uhhh how does that differ from just ignoring it? If stage magic in this case is not falsifiable then buyer beware, especially given Rossi's history, self contradictory statements, and bizarre behavior. The nature or limitations of such magic can be examined though, given various premises. I have dealt with chemical energy by pointing out that in my opinion it is impossible to make a chemical fuel system this small that puts out this much energy. You disagree, but do not accuse me of ignoring these issues. I haven't said you ignored these issues. It appeared to me you did not recall what has been numerically proven to you, at least in regards to the big E-cat, which is the only E-cat relevant to my paper. If you are talking about the little ones then that issue is moot because the little ones could have been dumping almost all mass in the form of water. We have to agree to disagree on these issues. That does not mean I have forgotten anything. It just means that if you are right, I am wrong. It means you are wrong to the extent of dismissing quantitatively demonstrated feasibility. That chemical fakes can be made which can be made to replicate the public tests it seems to me is indisputable. . . . which demonstrates an output of between 1500 W and and 750 W between time 150 minutes and time 476 minutes. That estimate is far too low. The heat radiating from the reactor plus the heat captured in the cooling loop far exceeds that. Stating the estimate is far too low is arm waving. Also, as I said, that power is enough to (1) boil water, and (2) burn someone who touches the manifold. That was your stated requirement. If chemical means are added, the thermal flux can of course be many times higher. Note. For some of the details I described here, I assume the cooling loop TC may be recording incorrectly but it does reflect the overall profile The overall profile can be met using mixes of materials and active control. Depending on the sophistication of the active control, *any* profile can be easily met of course. and relative heat output at different times. When the heat increases, the second TC shows a higher temperature. When the TC zero intercept is 40 min. away, that is how long it takes to cool down. That is how long it takes to cool down under the final conditions. This does not mean those conditions hold throughout the test. This is an unwarranted assumption on your part. Actually I'm pretty sure the cooling loop TC is correct to within a fraction of degree, but it does not matter. None of the instrument readings matter. That is fortunate, because Rossi' instrumentation is lousy, as we all know. - Jed His instrumentation was indeed lousy but easily fixed, and he certainly knew how to fix the problems, given the extensive world wide discussions! The motive, means, and opportunity for fraud are certainly there in extremes, as well as a checkered past. Extreme caution is justified, as is a more skeptical and numerical approach to data analysis. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: So these people support your views about the impossibility of storing enough heat during the warmup period in the large Ottoman E-cat of October 6 to account for the results? It would be more correct to say I support their views, or we arrived at the same conclusion. Do they believe Rossi has accomplished cold fusion/LENR with his device? Other than Talbot Chubb every researcher I have discussed this with believes most of the claims. Not all to the same extent. There are shades of belief. It is not an all or nothing. The pople who are most convinced are those who observed the tests in person, such as Celani. How do they explain the anemic and deficient tests that Rossi insists on doing instead of the proper and appropriate tests you, Josephson, Celani, and many many others have suggested to him? See McKubre's recent talk: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm As I said here, I agree with his characterization of Rossi and Rossi's business strategy. To reiterate, McKubre began by calling Rossi a dodgy character but technically brilliant. He discusses Rossi's business plans. He says Rossi is the master of misdirection. His business strategy is also brilliant. He is keeping his results ambiguous to avoid competition and the evil eye of the DoE. We have no proof of that, but it seems likely. I am not sure I agree the business strategy is brilliant. But given his IP problems, it is hard to come up with a better strategy. - Jed
[Vo]:Bob Park is back!
In his Dec 01 (?) What's New, Bob Park speaks in his usual style about cold fusion see- LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: PSEUDOSCIENCE IS AN ENORMOUS FIELD CF is on the first place! -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
I have bowed out of this discussion, but let me clarify this point: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims of stage magic is not falsifiable. Uhhh how does that differ from just ignoring it? It is a problem of logic, as I explained to Yugo. An assertion that cannot be tested or falsified cannot be debated. I cannot dispute it. Or agree with it, for that matter. It is meaningless. She claims there may be someone somewhere in the world who knows how to hide wires or chemical fuel in such a way that experts opening the cell would not be able to detect it. Until Yugo cites a specific stage magic technique that might accomplish this, there is no basis to determine whether it might be true or not. I do not believe such a stage trick can exist, even in principle. I have some knowledge of stage magic. As soon as the stage props are opened up and examined from the point of view of the magician -- that is, from the angle the audience cannot see -- the mechanism is obvious. It is always simple. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawing_a_woman_in_half#Methods_and_exposure No matter how you fake an eCat, the moment the reactor is opened up experts will see how it works. There is no way to hide wires. The cell is much too small to produce a chemical reaction of this magnitude, when you take into account the space needed for the equipment such as tanks and burners. Arguments that cannot be tested, falsified or refuted are verboten in science, but they are allowed in some other academic fields, such as literature critique or theology. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: In his Dec 01 (?) What's New, Bob Park speaks in his usual style about cold fusion see- LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: PSEUDOSCIENCE IS AN ENORMOUS FIELD CF is on the first place! You must be on his mailing list. The newest I find is Nov 28: http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/index.html Do you have a link, pls?
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: It is a problem of logic, as I explained to Yugo. An assertion that cannot be tested or falsified cannot be debated. I cannot dispute it. Or agree with it, for that matter. It is meaningless. You keep saying that but other people and I keep pointing out to you that Rossi can falsify it simply by running long enough when properly observed therefore it can be tested or falsified. Your continuing to say it can't doesn't make it so. What remains true is that Rossi has not properly falsified the proposition that he's faking his results. I do not believe such a stage trick can exist, even in principle. I have some knowledge of stage magic. Perhaps not enough. If you did, you'd know some illusions are quite complex and the method is not at all what one would predict from seeing it. As soon as the stage props are opened up and examined from the point of view of the magician -- that is, from the angle the audience cannot see -- the mechanism is obvious. It is always simple. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawing_a_woman_in_half#Methods_and_exposure No matter how you fake an eCat, the moment the reactor is opened up experts will see how it works. There is no way to hide wires. The cell is much too small to produce a chemical reaction of this magnitude, when you take into account the space needed for the equipment such as tanks and burners. Yes but in the case of the Ottoman E-cat, it was never properly opened up. One can argue a bit about the volume not seen in the finned case but it was considerable. Only Rossi knows what's in that sizeable box. And there is nothing to stop Rossi from relying on several different methods to falsify results. In Levi's experiment, some have guessed the T out thermocouple was in contact with a heating element, thus giving the incredible 130 kW out transient. In the early small E-cat tests, Rossi relied on heat of vaporization of steam which has been argued here extensively and he also may have goosed the heater when nobody was looking. In the megawatt demo, there is nothing to discuss because nobody saw the data being taken! Good illusionists do not repeat the same illusion in the same show to the same audience because eventually people will catch on. Rossi may have several methods to deceive. Arguments that cannot be tested, falsified or refuted are verboten in science, Could you explain to me how a properly performed, well instrumented, calibrated, long lasting and independent test of Rossi's device would not (for all practical and any interesting purposes) falsify that he was faking by illusion or any other mechanism? Note: the hypothesis that he would pass such an independent test but have faked at other times is a trivial case not worth considering for practical purposes... just in case you were thinking in that direction :-)
Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!
no link yet, sorry but this is the relevant text: 3. LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: PSEUDOSCIENCE IS AN ENORMOUS FIELD There are, I think, many more of them than there are of us. Let me mention just a few of the more notorious: Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishman, who gave us Cold Fusion in 1989, are the most famous in the Free Energy Category. Even so, physicists had their number in a couple of weeks. More recently (2006) in the same category, the Steorn Company in Dublin gave us Orbo, a classic perpetual motion machine. So classic it gets reinvented every century or so. Unfortunately Orbo is shy and refuses to perform when anyone’s watching. In the Chicken-Little Category, Devra Davis says the 5 billion cell-phone users are toast when we reach the latency period of brain cancer. Alas, I'm reaching my limit and there are hundreds more on my list. Maybe I'll write a book, or did I already do that? On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: In his Dec 01 (?) What's New, Bob Park speaks in his usual style about cold fusion see- LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: PSEUDOSCIENCE IS AN ENORMOUS FIELD CF is on the first place! You must be on his mailing list. The newest I find is Nov 28: http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/index.html Do you have a link, pls? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
At 11:08 AM 12/15/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate? http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~meam502/project/reviewexample2.pdf (2007) Very few with a melting-point above 100C -- and most of those are categorized as Group II or III or - Group I, most promising; group II, promising; group III, Less promising; -- insufficient data. Methyl fumarate (CHCO2NH3)2 102C 242kJ/kg Group I MgCl26H2O 117C 167 kJ/kg Group I (Compared to water specific heat at 4 kJ/kg K : Rock/Brick 0.9 kJ/kg K)
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: It is a problem of logic, as I explained to Yugo. An assertion that cannot be tested or falsified cannot be debated. I cannot dispute it. Or agree with it, for that matter. It is meaningless. You keep saying that but other people and I keep pointing out to you that Rossi can falsify it simply by running long enough . . . PLEASE Mary, for goodness sake, one last time: READ THIS I am talking about YOUR STATEMENT, taken in isolation, strictly from a logical point of view. I am NOT TALKING ABOUT what Rossi can or cannot do. I am not even talking about the content of your statement! I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be falsifiable, and you cannot test or falsify this one. You cannot prove that some person out in the world knows how to accomplish X, Y or Z. You would have have to ask every stage magician on earth before determining whether this is true. That is impractical. If you don't understand, then I suggest you read a book about logic. This is fundamental. It is about LOGIC and NOT THE PARTICULARS OF THIS CASE. Nothing to do with Rossi. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I am talking about YOUR STATEMENT, taken in isolation, strictly from a logical point of view. I am NOT TALKING ABOUT what Rossi can or cannot do. Apart from everything else, why on earth would you want to do that? This is a practical situation-- not a debating society or a discussion about rules of logic. I am not even talking about the content of your statement! Well then, please do talk about it. Seems to me, that's the issue! I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be falsifiable, and you cannot test or falsify this one. You cannot prove that some person out in the world knows how to accomplish X, Y or Z. Maybe you didn't intend to phrase that this way? Of course you can prove someone can accomplish X, Y and Z. By finding someone who can and showing that they can. You would have have to ask every stage magician on earth before determining whether this is true. That is impractical. I don't see what you're getting at. Or why or what it has to do with this discussion? If you don't understand, then I suggest you read a book about logic. This is fundamental. It is about LOGIC and NOT THE PARTICULARS OF THIS CASE. Nothing to do with Rossi. OK, maybe someone else can explain it to me in sixth grade terms I can understand. My last formal logic class was sometime ago.
Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!
Thanks for posting the actual paragraph, Peter. 3. LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: PSEUDOSCIENCE IS AN ENORMOUS FIELD There are, I think, many more of them than there are of us. Let me mention just a few of the more notorious: Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishman, who gave us Cold Fusion in 1989, are the most famous in the Free Energy Category. Even so, physicists had their number in a couple of weeks. More recently (2006) in the same category, the Steorn Company in Dublin gave us Orbo, a classic perpetual motion machine. So classic it gets reinvented every century or so. Unfortunately Orbo is shy and refuses to perform when anyone’s watching. In the Chicken-Little Category, Devra Davis says the 5 billion cell-phone users are toast when we reach the latency period of brain cancer. Alas, I'm reaching my limit and there are hundreds more on my list. Maybe I'll write a book, or did I already do that? And still no mention of Rossi, Defkalion, and the rest. Seems to me this only makes Park's deliberate action of continuing to ignore the elephant in the middle of the living room even more striking. Does anyone seriously question the possibility that Park remains unaware of Rossi, Defkalion, and the rest of the eCat gang? Seriously? This is deflection - trying to give CF a black eye by casting random dispersions into the field. It won't work. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:entanglement broadcasting
Does anyone know if and how entanglement effects are explained in stochastic electrodynamics? -- See: Second entanglement and (re)Born wave functions in Stochastic Electrodynamics http://nonloco-physics.0catch.com/aip05.pdf On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil wrote: I think I can safely say no one understands quantum mechanics, the late physicist Richard Feynman once famously explained. Does anyone know if and how entanglement effects are explained in stochastic electrodynamics? -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:Thoughts about Mass and Gravitation and zeropoint.
Hi, my thesis is that matter sucks up energy and this is the reason for gravity. I dont know in which frequency range this happens, but I think matter sucks up zeropoint energy and converts it to matter. There was a similar theory that was discussed by Clerk Maxwell and Boltzmann and others. They had the idea gravity is caused by radiation pressure. Matter absorbs this radiation and so we get an attraction force, which is a pressure force from outside. Maxwell calulated this and finally came to the conclusion, that under this condition matter must infinitely heat up, and so this idea was finally rejected. Now, he did not know e=m*c^2. What happens if the energy is converted into mass? Lets use air as an example for energy. Speed of sound is independent from pressure, but it is dependent from temperature. c ~ sqrt(T). If c is speed of sound and T is temperature, then c is proportional dependent from squareroot of temperature. c^2 ~ T. c squared is proportional to temperature. T = p* c^2. p is the proportional factor. Now, lets replace t by energy and p by mass, then we get e =m*c^2. Because mass sucks up energy, the energy density near to a mass must be lower than far away. With lower temperature in air we get lower speed of sound. With lower energy density in space we get slower speed of c. Therefore light is bent by gravitation. But c is always measured constant! How this? This is, because we use c to measure space and time. Distance is measured by an electromagnetic wavelength and time is measured from a resonancy frequency of atoms. So c is constant by definition of the measurement method. So, instead measuring slower speed of c we must measure dilated time and dilated space as Einsteins relativity theory predicts. Peter
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On 11-12-15 03:52 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I am talking about YOUR STATEMENT, taken in isolation, strictly from a logical point of view. I am NOT TALKING ABOUT what Rossi can or cannot do. Apart from everything else, why on earth would you want to do that? This is a practical situation-- not a debating society or a discussion about rules of logic. I am not even talking about the content of your statement! Well then, please do talk about it. Seems to me, that's the issue! I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be falsifiable, and you cannot test or falsify this one. You cannot prove that some person out in the world knows how to accomplish X, Y or Z. Maybe you didn't intend to phrase that this way? Of course you can prove someone can accomplish X, Y and Z. By finding someone who can and showing that they can. You would have have to ask every stage magician on earth before determining whether this is true. That is impractical. I don't see what you're getting at. Or why or what it has to do with this discussion? If you don't understand, then I suggest you read a book about logic. This is fundamental. It is about LOGIC and NOT THE PARTICULARS OF THIS CASE. Nothing to do with Rossi. OK, maybe someone else can explain it to me in sixth grade terms I can understand. My last formal logic class was sometime ago. LOL ! This has turned into an entertaining discussion. I'll stick an oar in, and you can all ignore it. (I'm sure you've already grasped this point, MY, but none the less here it is...) Jed's argument, MY, is basically that, by (in effect) saying Somebody somewhere would be able to come up with a trick that fooled all observers, you've made a statement which by its nature can not be proved false. (It would require an exhaustive search of all possible methods for faking it, which is not practical.) As simple as that. Jed has, after all, a technical point, but it's not worth enough to win the match. The problem with Jed's point is that it's vulnerable to a reductio ad absurdum. Specifically, it leads to a rather obvious logical conclusion, which goes something like this: If you can't think of a specific way this scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, then it's not reasonable to ask for REPLICATION, because he's already proved his claims. The latter, though it follows logically from Jed's position, isn't an argument most folks would buy into, I think (FWIW I still favor sleight of hand and misdirection, with a minimum of special equipment, but whatever... If Rossi's really any good and handles his exit gracefully enough, we'll never know how he did it, and five years from now we'll still be arguing over the one that got away.)
Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!
The whole thing is related to pseudoscience and ignorance, and it's all relevant. Here it is: 1. HACKS: SHODDY PRESS COVERAGE OF SCIENCE. The Leveson Inquiry into the standards and ethics of the UK press, headed by Lord Justice Brian Leveson, was prompted by the News of the World phone- hacking scandal (WN 22 Jul 2011). The seamy British tabloid was the top- selling English-language newspaper in the world when owner Rupert Murdoch had to close it five months ago after its news-collection methods were exposed. The intense public interest in the sex and drug culture of celebrities is certainly troubling, but the same journalistic standards applied to science news may be more dangerous. In 1998, for example, Andrew Wakefield, an obscure British gastroenterologist, set off a worldwide vaccination panic when he falsely identified the common MMR vaccination as a cause of autism. Widely reported by the press, Wakefield's irresponsible assertion led to a precipitous decline in vaccination rate and a corresponding 14-year rise in measles cases. An editorial in the current issue of Nature (8 Dec 2011) urges scientists to fight back against agenda-driven reporting of science. Who could disagree? It is, after all, a fight against ignorance. 2. IGNORANCE: THERE'S PLENTY MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM. A commitment to intellectual openness provides a mechanism for self- correction that sets science apart from the unchanging dictates of revealed religion, raising the prospect of transforming Earth into something close to biblical paradise, at least for Homo sapiens. Directions to this earthly paradise, however, are written in mathematics. In particular, the dialect of scientific progress is differential equations. Unfortunately, few people speak mathematics or have any interest in learning it. In the modern world, the engine of scientific progress is driven by a subset of the human race that speaks mathematics as a second language. This is not healthy. Many people, unable to distinguish science from pseudoscience, are duped by crackpots and swindlers who attempt to mimic scientists, and often manage to fool themselves. How do they do it? 3. LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: PSEUDOSCIENCE IS AN ENORMOUS FIELD There are, I think, many more of them than there are of us. Let me mention just a few of the more notorious: Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishman, who gave us Cold Fusion in 1989, are the most famous in the Free Energy Category. Even so, physicists had their number in a couple of weeks. More recently (2006) in the same category, the Steorn Company in Dublin gave us Orbo, a classic perpetual motion machine. So classic it gets reinvented every century or so. Unfortunately Orbo is shy and refuses to perform when anyone’s watching. In the Chicken-Little Category, Devra Davis says the 5 billion cell-phone users are toast when we reach the latency period of brain cancer. Alas, I'm reaching my limit and there are hundreds more on my list. Maybe I'll write a book, or did I already do that?
Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone seriously question the possibility that Park remains unaware of Rossi, Defkalion, and the rest of the eCat gang? Seriously? It hasn't been in the mass media much. I don't anyone who has discussed this with Park . . . I suppose it is possible he does not know. Or he heard months ago and it slipped his mind. I'm a little puzzled why you think he might refrain from attacking Rossi. Why would he be indirect, or use deflection? He is not reticent about expressing his opinions. If he attacks cold fusion I do not think he would hold back from attacking Rossi. Everyone I know thinks they are the same phenomenon. Rossi and Defkalion deny this but I assume that is only for business purposes. Rossi has no credibility in the wider world. Most news articles say he is probably a fraud. Maybe Park thinks the news articles are enough. Perhaps he thinks Rossi is far out and so disreputable he does not merit debunking. Just another in a long line of frauds. Park says all cold fusion results are fraud or delusion. That's what he told me last time the subject came up. I do not think he bothers to make any distinctions or to call out any particular worker. Perhaps he thinks Rossi is no better or worse than anyone else. You have to realize that people like Park are profoundly ignorant of this subject. He says he has never read any papers and I think that is true. He does not know what the claims are, or what supporting evidence there is, or how many people have replicated. Mary Yugo also says she has read no papers. I believe her. Most confirmed skeptics refuse to read anything. If they read something, and understood it, they would not be skeptics, would they? The only people I know who have read many papers and yet who do not believe the mainstream results such as McKubre's are Britz and Krivit. I find them both a little strange. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Most confirmed skeptics refuse to read anything. It's not refusal. It's that they are not interested. Most skeptics are satisfied that if the grandiose claims were real, simple and obvious demonstrations would not only be possible, but would be ubiquitous, and then, as in 1989, they would all leap in quicker than you can say lenr. If they read something, and understood it, they would not be skeptics, would they? Yes, they would. The DOE panel read it, understood it, and were still skeptical.
Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If he attacks cold fusion I do not think he would hold back from attacking Rossi. Everyone I know thinks they are the same phenomenon. Guess you don't know me! I think there might possibly be something to cold fusion. I also think Rossi is most likely a crook and his E-cat is a fraud. I also think Defkalion has nothing and never did -- not even as lame a bunch of evidence as Rossi has tried to put forth. Mary Yugo also says she has read no papers. No longer the case. I slogged through a couple, was not impressed by their clarity and robustness and stopped reading them. When I read a paper purporting to show a new source of energy, I want to see iron clad blank runs and calibrations and then I want to see a robust, long lasting excess heat shown on a proper heat output vs time plot. I believe her. Most confirmed skeptics refuse to read anything. If they read something, and understood it, they would not be skeptics, would they? Sure they would be -- if they either didn't believe the results or thought they were insufficient proof. The only people I know who have read many papers and yet who do not believe the mainstream results such as McKubre's are Britz and Krivit. I find them both a little strange. I'm sure they return the compliment. Parks is a straw man and a red herring to combine two metaphors in one. Everyone including him would be convinced if Rossi had bothered to get ONE single properly done independent test or if any other researcher had anything like Rossi's claimed robust output and got it properly verified. With respect to Rossi, the single good test would have to be in addition to or instead of his weird and likely misdirecting and deceptive demonstrations. And that's before you even get to his ridiculous, laughable, comically awkward, anonymous client who is said to have bought 13 essentially useless leaky kloodges in huge containers. Like he really expected anyone to believe that unsupported assertion? That's more than 1300 Ottoman E-cats to service and maintain! How would you like that job? Strangely, a surprising number of people actually believe this improbable fantasy! I never cease to be amazed at that.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: The problem with Jed's point is that it's vulnerable to a reductio ad absurdum. Specifically, it leads to a rather obvious logical conclusion, which goes something like this: If you can't think of a specific way this scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, then it's not reasonable to ask for REPLICATION, because he's already proved his claims. Nope. As you say, that is reductio ad absurdum. I do not think my statement is vulnerable to that. The only valid statement starting with these premises would be: If you can't think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTAL scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, then you have no basis to challenge the conclusions. You have to specify experimentalist, since the rules are slightly different for theory or observational science, medical science, and so on. All critiques of experiments must be based on specific discussions of instruments and techniques. No appealing to theory allowed. Your pretend conclusion, . . . it's not reasonable to ask for REPLICATION, because he's already proved his claims is not valid because replication is always required. It does not matter how strong the evidence is; you cannot short-circuit that step. That's another rule of experimental science, but not all the other branches. Here is a valid variation similar to what you proposed: If no one can think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTALIST scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, after some number of years and despite many attempts, and after widespread replications, then it is no longer reasonable to ask for additional REPLICATION, because he and the others who replicated already proved the claims That is in fact where we stand with the Fleischmann Pons effect. The statute of limitations ran out a long time ago. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims of stage magic is not falsifiable. I don't know who you think is convinced by that. Of course it's falsifiable. Just run the experiment long enough without input to exclude any possible source of energy except nuclear. Stage magic is not real magic you know. It still depends on the laws of physics. And even if it were paranormal, James Randi makes a living falsifying claims of paranormal. To be falsifiable, you only have to be able to *conceive* of an experiment that would contradict it. It's intended to distinguish scientific theories or assertions from religious ones. Not to discount speculation as you've done. Otherwise we could deal with Rossi by saying his claims are not falsifiable. It's ridiculous, and you need to find a new chorus to sing. I have dealt with chemical energy by pointing out that in my opinion it is impossible to make a chemical fuel system this small that puts out this much energy. This is not a matter of opinion. Clean-burning fuel like alcohol stores the amount of energy Rossi displayed in less than one liter. It would be easy to burn that in a 100 kg device of that size. . . . which demonstrates an output of between 1500 W and and 750 W between time 150 minutes and time 476 minutes. That estimate is far too low. The heat radiating from the reactor plus the heat captured in the cooling loop far exceeds that. Hard evidence does not support more than a few hundred watts on average. And the soft evidence, the losses through the insulation, not more than a few hundred more, for a total of 1 kW or less. Remember there were 50 of those fat cats inside a shipping container. If each was losing a kW or even 500 W, the inside of that container would have been unbearably hot. How's that for soft evidence?
Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo also says she has read no papers. No longer the case. I slogged through a couple, was not impressed by their clarity and robustness and stopped reading them. If you find McKubre, Miles or Storms difficult to read then you are not very good at calorimetry, despite your claim to having some expertise in it. This is like reading Niclaus Wirth and concluding he does not know how to describe programming well, because his discussion of recursion is complicated. Parks is a straw man . . . PARK, Park, Park, Park. Not plural Parks. Park. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The power between 150 and 250 shown in the cooling loop is more or less stable, meaning the thing has reached the terminal temperature. It has achieved a balance between input and output. It's stable because it's measuring the temperature of water and steam at equilibrium. To the extent the pressure is stable, the temperature must also be, regardless of the rate of flow of heat into the water. And if the energy is stored in some kind of phase-change material then the temperature of the thermal mass will be stable at the melting point, and the heat flow to the water will be pretty constant until the material has all solidified. That's the time to shut the show down, because then the heat flow is likely to start slowing down, and soon enough the water will stop boiling, and *then* the temperature will start to fall. So, if he's using a phase-change material to store the heat, he's got two layers of stabilization going for him. As for the rest of your comments . . . I am not the only one who disagrees with you. So do all of the knowledgeable people I asked to review your paper. There are also a lot of people who agree with that analysis, at least its broad strokes. But counting supporters won't move this forward. Challenging and defending the claims will. Or should.
Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2
by the way the COP=6 is first conservative, but the need is not of electricity but of heat... of course today he use electricity because it is easy to control. in fact it seems that hyperion, and maybe soon e-cat will self sustain quite long. also as said here, if you can produce electricity, juste recycle your own heat or electricity, and maybe even cherge an accumulator to be able to start from cold, like a car... COP is a non-sense for a really producing device... efficiency (usable energy/(energy produced+consumed)) is more rational to use...
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: Rossi's tests and explanations are full of holes and self contradictions, impossibilities. It is Rossi's tests and explanations that matter. All the blather from the peanut gallery is irrelevant, except possibly to alert the few gullible investors that might listen, and to demonstrate that the LENR research community is not so crackpot as to easily accept scientifically unproven claims of commercial viability. What it's demonstrated is that there are only a few not so crackpot. You and Krivit are in the minority if Rothwell is right that most of the CF community believes Rossi. If Rossi flames out, Krivit will become an unbearable sage in the field. That is, more unbearable than he already is.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate? You might also consider reversible metal-hydride reactions.
Re: [Vo]:Crowd-funded test? List of pro-LENR scientists
paying for a demo could be proposed, but since if true it will be done next year, that would just for impatient fan. about cash, don't forget the escrowed cash... but once you have the machine, the best would be to find a good usage. who knows someone needing 1MW thermal ? vegetable farmer, pool, building or collective heating maybe we should just try to find a client... or be patient... and careful about scam! a third party could abuse us, like some have abused charity or fans... it would be stupid to fall into a scam to check a potential scam... 2011/12/15 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Spending a million bucks for this is crazy. The machine will be obsolete in six months. Unless you have a need for 1 MW of heat, it will be useless. If you have $1 million burning a hole in your pocket, give it to me that I will have this thing replicated in no time. People such as Miley could replicate most of it in a short time if they had ~$50,000 in funding. Or $5,000. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Other than Talbot Chubb every researcher I have discussed this with believes most of the claims. Not many on record though. It will be interesting if the ecat comes to nothing, to see how they will rationalize their beliefs in the claims. Because the absence of a real commercial product in a few years would all but prove the claims wrong. Probably conspiracy theories will abound. See McKubre's recent talk: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm As I said here, I agree with his characterization of Rossi and Rossi's business strategy. To reiterate, McKubre began by calling Rossi a dodgy character but technically brilliant. He discusses Rossi's business plans. He says Rossi is the master of misdirection. His business strategy is also brilliant. He is keeping his results ambiguous to avoid competition and the evil eye of the DoE. Can results be ambiguous and irrefutable at the same time?
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It is a problem of logic, as I explained to Yugo. An assertion that cannot be tested or falsified cannot be debated. I cannot dispute it. Or agree with it, for that matter. It is meaningless. This sounds like the tactic of a loser. The same can be said of Rossi's claim that the heat comes from nuclear reactions. Rossi's claim is based on energy density. If it does not exceed the energy density possible by chemical or thermal storage, then he has nothing. And any claim of magic (illusion) still has to satisfy the laws of nature. It is perfectly feasible to conceive of ways Rossi could do his demo to exclude illusion as an explanation. That makes it falsifiable. But trying to obfuscate an argument with rules of logic that you don't understand may allow you to keep jabbering, but I have no idea who could possibly buy into it. The levels of energy Rossi is demonstrating are small enough to be produced by thermal storage, chemical reactions, or by misdirection and sleight of hand. Much larger levels of energy would not be. That would be falsification. No matter how you fake an eCat, the moment the reactor is opened up experts will see how it works. Too bad, they just cracked the lid. I'd like to see the actual amount of nickel powder used, and the absence of any other thermal mass, before I'm prepared to believe nuclear reactions are needed. There is no way to hide wires. There is no need for wires in a 100 kg device. The cell is much too small to produce a chemical reaction of this magnitude, when you take into account the space needed for the equipment such as tanks and burners. You should look up thermochemical energy storage. Arguments that cannot be tested, falsified or refuted are verboten in science, All the arguments *against* the ecat can be. Rossi won't allow it for the claims for it.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 11:08 AM 12/15/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate? http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~meam502/project/reviewexample2.pdf(2007) Very few with a melting-point above 100C -- and most of those are categorized as Group II or III or - Group I, most promising; group II, promising; group III, Less promising; -- insufficient data. It's odd that the paper says little or nothing about sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate, a mixture of which (40/60) is actually used to store energy in some concentrating solar plants. Sodium nitrate melts at 308C, and the liquid has a heat capacity of 2 J/gK if I remember correctly. It would be pretty effective for Rossi's purposes.
Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2
When you feed the output back into the input and there is additional power to supply energy to an external load, then the COP is infinite as also occurs in a Fossil or Nuclear plant which also have infinite COPs if you exclude the energy obtained from the fuel. So claiming a LENR generator has a infinite COP is not a good measure of the worth of the energy generation system. What then kicks into play is the cost per delivered kWh of either heat or electricity. In this way the LCOE (Levelized Cost Of Energy) is comparable between Fossil, Nuclear, Solar, Wind, GeoThermal, Tidal, Wave, LENR, etc. LCOE can also handle the cost of CO2 emissions from Fossil fuel plants. For the E-Cat or any other LENR generator to make inroads into the global energy generation market, the LCOE per kWh of delivered energy must be lower than from any other comparable energy sources or there is simply no market for it. The top of the LCOE scale probably starts as a drop it in a remote site (could be in outer space) somewhere and generate heat and electricity. For that market the acceptable LCOE of the delivered energy is very high. For domestic situations the max acceptable LCOE drops quite a bit and for on grid electricity generation the required LCOE hits rock bottom. I doubt any space agency would fly a LENR generator for some time, nor would any military group drop a LENR generator into a mission critical situation, so the best market is the industrial / commercial / domestic market and that is where both Leonardo and DGT seem to be aiming their product launches. On 12/16/2011 8:56 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: by the way the COP=6 is first conservative, but the need is not of electricity but of heat... of course today he use electricity because it is easy to control. in fact it seems that hyperion, and maybe soon e-cat will self sustain quite long. also as said here, if you can produce electricity, juste recycle your own heat or electricity, and maybe even cherge an accumulator to be able to start from cold, like a car... COP is a non-sense for a really producing device... efficiency (usable energy/(energy produced+consumed)) is more rational to use...
Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2
Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: For the E-Cat or any other LENR generator to make inroads into the global energy generation market, the LCOE per kWh of delivered energy must be lower than from any other comparable energy sources or there is simply no market for it. Yup. That's a key point. You mean a market for the device as a practical source of energy. A person could sell eCats as experimental devices. You could sell thousands at a premium price to laboratories worldwide. Later you might even sell them as a novelty item, similar to today's high-end electric cars. Toys for rich people. Early automobiles and microcomputers were novelty items. The top of the LCOE scale probably starts as a drop it in a remote site (could be in outer space) somewhere and generate heat and electricity. For that market the acceptable LCOE of the delivered energy is very high. Yup again. Other examples of critical power that people will pay a premium for include: pacemaker batteries, heart assist pumps (Ventricular Assist Device), hearing aid batteries, watch batteries, remote telephone repeaters, cell phone batteries, aviation, and highway sensors (now served by solar panels). The technology has to be developed to a high state of reliability before such applications can be served. The same goes for military applications, as you pointed out. For domestic situations the max acceptable LCOE drops quite a bit and for on grid electricity generation the required LCOE hits rock bottom. Yup. Because of that, this is may be the last market you want to approach. See Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma for ideas about good markets to begin with. This book introduces the concepts of disruptive versus sustaining technology. These terms have become widely used clichés in modern business, but people often misunderstand the original concept. I discussed this book in chapter 7 of my book. I highly recommend reading the original. Christensen came out with a follow-up book which was also interesting. It needs editing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be falsifiable, Resorting to misunderstood rules is the refuge of people who have no good arguments left. Falsifiability just means it should be possible to conceive of an experimental result that would contradict the assertion. It's intended to avoid religious claims in a scientific arena. It's certainly possible to conceive of experimental results that would contradict all the claims that the ecat could be run on non-nuclear principles. They could all be falsified by a suitable isolated and inspected device that produced heat for a really really long time. So that the overall energy density (unambiguously measured) exceed unequivocally the energy density of the best chemical fuel. and you cannot test or falsify this one. You cannot prove that some person out in the world knows how to accomplish X, Y or Z. You would have have to ask every stage magician on earth before determining whether this is true. That is neither necessary, nor would it be sufficient. There are some tricks that haven't even been thought of yet. But James Randi would be out of a life's commitment if it weren't possible to set up controls on a demonstration that can exclude paranormal effects to discover the illusions used. He's done it repeatedly. Take for example a claim that a fission bomb (or hydrogen bomb) used sleight of hand to produce the claimed energy output. That claim could be pretty clearly falsified with a demonstration to the satisfaction of any observer you can imagine. Likewise, a small, completely isolated ecat (inspected by James Randi) that boils an olympic pool dry would falsify claims of magic to just about anyone's satisfaction. So would an ecat that powered a (small) vehicle to drive around the world without refueling. If you don't understand, then I suggest you read a book about logic. When you have to suggest people read books about logic for them to accept a claim of a new *nuclear energy source*, it's a pretty safe bet the claim is bogus. Do you need to study Plato to believe fission bombs are real?
Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: For the E-Cat or any other LENR generator to make inroads into the global energy generation market, the LCOE per kWh of delivered energy must be lower than from any other comparable energy sources or there is simply no market for it. Yup. That's a key point. You mean a market for the device as a practical source of energy. A person could sell eCats as experimental devices. You could sell thousands at a premium price to laboratories worldwide. Later you might even sell them as a novelty item, similar to today's high-end electric cars. Toys for rich people. Early automobiles and microcomputers were novelty items. The top of the LCOE scale probably starts as a drop it in a remote site (could be in outer space) somewhere and generate heat and electricity. For that market the acceptable LCOE of the delivered energy is very high. Yup again. Other examples of critical power that people will pay a premium for include: pacemaker batteries, heart assist pumps (Ventricular Assist Device), hearing aid batteries, watch batteries, remote telephone repeaters, cell phone batteries, aviation, and highway sensors (now served by solar panels). The technology has to be developed to a high state of reliability before such applications can be served. The same goes for military applications, as you pointed out. For domestic situations the max acceptable LCOE drops quite a bit and for on grid electricity generation the required LCOE hits rock bottom. Yup. Because of that, this is may be the last market you want to approach. See Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma for ideas about good markets to begin with. This book introduces the concepts of disruptive versus sustaining technology. These terms have become widely used clichés in modern business, but people often misunderstand the original concept. I discussed this book in chapter 7 of my book. I highly recommend reading the original. Christensen came out with a follow-up book which was also interesting. It needs editing. I don't understand any of that in the slightest. The device as it is supposed to be would immediately and without any changes be an excellent heat source. That's what makes the famous photo of Rossi, Levi and Focardi (was it?) huddled around the E-cat in huge winter coats so comical! Even as primitive a device as the early E-cats would be completely welcome as a space heater and hot water source in any cold environment. Imagine an isolated ski cabin in the Alps with no electricity. You wouldn't need to gather wood any more to keep warm all winter long. Same for cooking. But this is very silly conjecture. If the device worked, which is very doubtful at this point, it would be researched and rapidly improved and developed into much higher temperature regimes. That would make it suitable for propulsion and as a source of electricity. It would within a very few years have myriads of applications. And simply routing a bit of the output back to the input through a regulator would make it self sustaining. Of course all of that is just fanciful thinking and wishing.
Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!
Jed, Peter can correct me if I error on this point but I believe he has repeatedly attempted to contact Dr. Park specifically in regard to the Rossi saga. Numerous times. I believe Peter as posted the fact that Park has never responded to any of his repeated inquiries. I'm sure others have attempted to contact Park as well on Rossi. IMO, I find it highly... HIGHLY unlikely that Park has not heard of Rossi. Meanwhile, in Park's Dec 15 publication he couldn't help but mention his disdain towards Steorn and their Orbo prototype. I don't consider Steorn's operations as being no that much more visible that Rossi's operations. Going after individuals like Rossi strikes me as something Park would love to do. After all, he's gone after Steorn. Therefore, under the circumstance why wouldn't he go after Rossi, an individual who comes across as a flagrant carnival barker, for Pete's sake! Shoot! Even the Amazing Randy has already lifted his leg on this hydrant, as seen in that ridiculous You-Tube installment. So, why wouldn't Park...unless, IMHO, he has deliberately chosen to avoid discussing the matter... for now. Please understand, I think you are correct in the sense that I suspect Park doesn't believe in Rossi or his eCats. However, my suspicion is that what Park has seen so far has caused him to refrain from going after Rossi publicly. I suspect he is looking for more definitive proof that Rossi and his eCats are fraudulent, but that he has not yet found sufficient evidence. Only circumstantial here-say. To me, Park is acting like a smart bully who knows how to stay in power. A good bully knows when to refrain from getting in the middle of the lime light. He will let others less experienced than him do the ground work, like MY or J. Cude. If these individuals can find something definitive, I'm sure Park will come out swinging. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2
That is why I'm not fussed about why it works as long as it works and the LCOE fits my target market. When either Leonardo or DGT announce their Ac kWh devices, with prices, then we can determine into which markets these devices can and can not be sold. For any new energy generation technology, it is all about LCOE, reliability, market acceptance and identifying the low hanging fruit before the other guy. On 12/16/2011 9:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: For the E-Cat or any other LENR generator to make inroads into the global energy generation market, the LCOE per kWh of delivered energy must be lower than from any other comparable energy sources or there is simply no market for it. Yup. That's a key point. You mean a market for the device as a practical source of energy. A person could sell eCats as experimental devices. You could sell thousands at a premium price to laboratories worldwide. Later you might even sell them as a novelty item, similar to today's high-end electric cars. Toys for rich people. Early automobiles and microcomputers were novelty items. The top of the LCOE scale probably starts as a drop it in a remote site (could be in outer space) somewhere and generate heat and electricity. For that market the acceptable LCOE of the delivered energy is very high. Yup again. Other examples of critical power that people will pay a premium for include: pacemaker batteries, heart assist pumps (Ventricular Assist Device), hearing aid batteries, watch batteries, remote telephone repeaters, cell phone batteries, aviation, and highway sensors (now served by solar panels). The technology has to be developed to a high state of reliability before such applications can be served. The same goes for military applications, as you pointed out. For domestic situations the max acceptable LCOE drops quite a bit and for on grid electricity generation the required LCOE hits rock bottom. Yup. Because of that, this is may be the last market you want to approach. See Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma for ideas about good markets to begin with. This book introduces the concepts of disruptive versus sustaining technology. These terms have become widely used clichés in modern business, but people often misunderstand the original concept. I discussed this book in chapter 7 of my book. I highly recommend reading the original. Christensen came out with a follow-up book which was also interesting. It needs editing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If you can't think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTAL scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, then you have no basis to challenge the conclusions. I can't think of any way (much less a specific way) that famous magicians could do their illusions but I am pretty sure they are still illusions. Aren't you? Similarly, I am pretty sure Rossi is running an illusion. Exactly what illusion and how it's done, I am not sure. Several people have proposed ways that seem plausible to me even though they don't to you. I never said I *know* Rossi is faking. I am saying it is by far the most likely possibility. I suppose there is a small chance that he is for real in which case the way he has gone about things should get him tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail (to use an auld American expression).
[Vo]:Possible Proof of Peter's theory of gravity and New Matter Accrual
Peter, your thoughts about matter sucking ZPE and accruing mass may be extremely important. Your theory is a fascinatingly possible explanation for how the Earth has grown to its present size. If I brought you a box of broken glass, then assembled it into a perfect sphere, with no leftover pieces, it would be impossible to convince you that: Really, it had to have been a glass bowl! The following link demonstrates this very thin. First, Neal Adams, (Of Marvel Comics Fame as the main artist!) started with a virtual Earth. Then he pasted a map of the Ages of the Ocean floor. He then remove the newest sections of the ocean floor, leaving big gaps. Then, he moved all of the remaining segments together, and they only fit together on a slightly smaller Earth. He does this some seventeen times more: In the end, He ends up with all of the continents fitting together. They fit together onto a sphere that is 60% of the present EarthAll continents and large islands are completely surrounded by other continents and large islands---fitting together very well!The continents and large Islands completely cover this smaller here are no more oceans. This is backed up by abundant geological evidence. identical fossils in all areas where the pieces fit together, where fossils are available.Mountain ranges are better-explained by the wrinkling of the continents as they adapt to the ever-flattening re-curvature of the Earth's surface. This Growing Earth Theory has been around for more than a century. Really the only reason this theory has been rejected is because no one believes that new matter could be accumulating, inside the Earth. Study all of these videos very seriously, because they may be the best proof that your theory is really true, since it would explain the impossible accumulation of new matter inside the Earth! Perhaps we can calculate this effect, using your theory, and then see if it matches the observed rate of the Earth's Growth. If you write your theory in a good technical style, I could help you publish it in the NPA Journal---they are very open minded. Please contact me and let me know what you think. Must-See Videos: http://nealadams.com/nmu.html Wm. Scott Smith+509 290 4318+509 326 1307GMT - 8 hours Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:17:37 +0100 From: peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Thoughts about Mass and Gravitation and zeropoint. Hi, my thesis is that matter sucks up energy and this is the reason for gravity. I dont know in which frequency range this happens, but I think matter sucks up zeropoint energy and converts it to matter. There was a similar theory that was discussed by Clerk Maxwell and Boltzmann and others. They had the idea gravity is caused by radiation pressure. Matter absorbs this radiation and so we get an attraction force, which is a pressure force from outside. Maxwell calulated this and finally came to the conclusion, that under this condition matter must infinitely heat up, and so this idea was finally rejected. Now, he did not know e=m*c^2. What happens if the energy is converted into mass? Lets use air as an example for energy. Speed of sound is independent from pressure, but it is dependent from temperature. c ~ sqrt(T). If c is speed of sound and T is temperature, then c is proportional dependent from squareroot of temperature. c^2 ~ T. c squared is proportional to temperature. T = p* c^2. p is the proportional factor. Now, lets replace t by energy and p by mass, then we get e =m*c^2. Because mass sucks up energy, the energy density near to a mass must be lower than far away. With lower temperature in air we get lower speed of sound. With lower energy density in space we get slower speed of c. Therefore light is bent by gravitation. But c is always measured constant! How this? This is, because we use c to measure space and time. Distance is measured by an electromagnetic wavelength and time is measured from a resonancy frequency of atoms. So c is constant by definition of the measurement method. So, instead measuring slower speed of c we must measure dilated time and dilated space as Einsteins relativity theory predicts. Peter
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If you can't think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTAL scientist's work could have jumped the tracks, then you have no basis to challenge the conclusions. First of all, there are many specific ways suggested to explain the ecat, that do not involve nuclear reactions. Secondly, none are necessary. Unless the energy density exceeds what is known to be possible, there is no reason to accept the claims. And thirdly, the failure of scientists (for a time) to identify the flaws in the N-ray and polywater experiments did not mean the conclusions were right, or that they should not be challenged. And that goes for all the perpetual motion claims that are repeatedly made. At some point, it is no longer interesting or necessary to even try to understand the observations made by people claiming yet again to have built a perpetual motion machine. All critiques of experiments must be based on specific discussions of instruments and techniques. No appealing to theory allowed. It's a good thing you don't make the rules. If appeals to theory were not used to guide understanding, we would lose the benefit of standing on the shoulders of giants. Robust experimental results must be accepted in contradiction to theory, for sure, and are, of course. But that's not the same as ignoring theory in the interpretation of experiments.Theory just represents an accepted generalization based on previous experiments. If a result (or more commonly, an interpretation of a result) contradicts theory, then it has to be questioned. That's a critical part of making progress. And if another interpretation of the same results fits existing theory, then it's more likely to be correct. In the case of the ecat, the experimental results consist of temperature and flow rate measurements. Claiming it's nuclear is a *theory* to explain the results. And since it is not consistent with expectations of existing theory, it is important to question it. If the temperatures and flow rates are consistent with an alternative theory that *is* consistent with existing theory, it's more likely to be correct. replication is always required. It does not matter how strong the evidence is; you cannot short-circuit that step. That's another rule of experimental science, Replication is always desirable to improve and understand, but it's not always necessary to accept a new phenomenon. The Wright's 1908 flight in Paris was enough to convince all skeptics. An exploding nuclear bomb would convince all skeptics. And it's not hard to imagine a single demo of the ecat that would convince all skeptics. Rossi has not come close to that yet. That is in fact where we stand with the Fleischmann Pons effect. The statute of limitations ran out a long time ago. I agree. If they claim heat from nuclear reactions and can't convince the scientific mainstream, who would love nothing more, then it's time to cut losses.
Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I don't understand any of that in the slightest. Then I suggest you read Christensen and some other books about business. Some of these ideas are complicated. You have to do your homework. The device as it is supposed to be would immediately and without any changes be an excellent heat source. That it may be, but we already have excellent heat sources, such as gas-fired space heaters, heat pumps and solar water heaters. There are many dimensions in which something can be excellent yet still uncompetitive in some markets. Cold fusion does not need any fuel. You might think that would make it an unbeatable competitor. But the same can be said for solar water heating, solar power and wind power, yet these are not competitive in all markets. See chapter 2 of my book. Even as primitive a device as the early E-cats would be completely welcome as a space heater and hot water source in any cold environment. No, not any cold environment. That depends on the initial cost of equipment, reliability and many other factors. After the technology matures the situation will be quite different. Imagine an isolated ski cabin in the Alps with no electricity. You wouldn't need to gather wood any more to keep warm all winter long. Same for cooking. There are not many isolated ski cabins in the Alps. It would be difficult to reach that market. They would demand high reliability which is not likely in the early devices. I am sure there are abundant niche markets in which an early version of this device can be sold at a profit, with customer satisfaction. This is what AG called low hanging fruit. Finding these markets will take skilled business people. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!
It's not relevant, because his criticism is against innumeracy, which applies to such delusions as astrology and homeopathy, but not cold fusion, where the most serious advocates are scientists, who certainly know their differential equations. Why would anyone mention cold fusion in 2011, and raise P F as the example, while neglecting Rossi? That's really bizarre. On Dec 15, 2011, at 16:36, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The whole thing is related to pseudoscience and ignorance, and it's all relevant. Here it is: 1. HACKS: SHODDY PRESS COVERAGE OF SCIENCE. The Leveson Inquiry into the standards and ethics of the UK press, headed by Lord Justice Brian Leveson, was prompted by the News of the World phone- hacking scandal (WN 22 Jul 2011). The seamy British tabloid was the top- selling English-language newspaper in the world when owner Rupert Murdoch had to close it five months ago after its news-collection methods were exposed. The intense public interest in the sex and drug culture of celebrities is certainly troubling, but the same journalistic standards applied to science news may be more dangerous. In 1998, for example, Andrew Wakefield, an obscure British gastroenterologist, set off a worldwide vaccination panic when he falsely identified the common MMR vaccination as a cause of autism. Widely reported by the press, Wakefield's irresponsible assertion led to a precipitous decline in vaccination rate and a corresponding 14-year rise in measles cases. An editorial in the current issue of Nature (8 Dec 2011) urges scientists to fight back against agenda-driven reporting of science. Who could disagree? It is, after all, a fight against ignorance. 2. IGNORANCE: THERE'S PLENTY MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM. A commitment to intellectual openness provides a mechanism for self- correction that sets science apart from the unchanging dictates of revealed religion, raising the prospect of transforming Earth into something close to biblical paradise, at least for Homo sapiens. Directions to this earthly paradise, however, are written in mathematics. In particular, the dialect of scientific progress is differential equations. Unfortunately, few people speak mathematics or have any interest in learning it. In the modern world, the engine of scientific progress is driven by a subset of the human race that speaks mathematics as a second language. This is not healthy. Many people, unable to distinguish science from pseudoscience, are duped by crackpots and swindlers who attempt to mimic scientists, and often manage to fool themselves. How do they do it? 3. LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: PSEUDOSCIENCE IS AN ENORMOUS FIELD There are, I think, many more of them than there are of us. Let me mention just a few of the more notorious: Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishman, who gave us Cold Fusion in 1989, are the most famous in the Free Energy Category. Even so, physicists had their number in a couple of weeks. More recently (2006) in the same category, the Steorn Company in Dublin gave us Orbo, a classic perpetual motion machine. So classic it gets reinvented every century or so. Unfortunately Orbo is shy and refuses to perform when anyone’s watching. In the Chicken-Little Category, Devra Davis says the 5 billion cell-phone users are toast when we reach the latency period of brain cancer. Alas, I'm reaching my limit and there are hundreds more on my list. Maybe I'll write a book, or did I already do that?
[Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without being properly debunked? Are there any examples of new science remaining on the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream?
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On 11-12-15 06:11 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: Falsifiability just means it should be possible to conceive of an experimental result that would contradict the assertion. It's intended to avoid religious claims in a scientific arena. It actually has much broader applications than just that. Hang around the crackpot forums long enough and you'll encounter any number of theories that are neither religious nor falsifiable. In fact, in my experience, the assertion that X must be falsifiable is most often used where X is a full-blown *theory* rather than a particular argument or single assertion. A theory which is not falsifiable is considered invalid, or, perhaps more accurately if less flamboyantly, it can be termed purely speculative. Speculation can eventually lead to a valid (falsifiable) theory, of course. However, when the speculator is running from arguments which would shoot down the speculation if it ever stood still long enough for someone to draw a bead on it, that's not likely to happen. This is, of course, something which has come up in the context of string theory. I have often heard it asked, Has string theory made any testable predictions yet?. (I am clueless regarding string theory, BTW, and have no idea what the answer to that question is.) A theory which makes no testable predictions is, of course, not falsifiable, and hence should not really be dignified with the name of theory. A nice example of a non-falsifiable bit of atheistic speculation is this one: You really live in the 33rd century, and the apparent real world is just a full-immersion video game which you happen to be playing. A related notion: You're dreaming right now, and the shreds of dream which you may remember from last night are actually distorted memories of your waking life. One slightly more serious one: There is, indeed, an aether, but Lorentz contraction due to motion through the aether happens to be exactly the same as the Fitzgerald contraction predicted by SR, and the time effects due to motion through the aether also match the time dilation predicted by SR. Consequently no experiment will show a different result due to the presence of the aether, and despite the existence of a distinguished rest frame, there is no way to determine which frame that is. (This has been called Lorentz ether theory, or LET for short, and it supposedly embodies the final version of the Lorentz's theory.) [ ... ] Take for example a claim that a fission bomb (or hydrogen bomb) used sleight of hand to produce the claimed energy output. Did you by any chance ever read The Jesus Factor?
Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Then I suggest you read Christensen and some other books about business. Some of these ideas are complicated. You have to do your homework. An amazing new revolutionary technology promising to replace fossil fuels... but it's useless if you don't do your homework. Once you're finished with Plato, Descartes, and Popper, move on to Christensen. When you can pass the exams, maybe you will be allowed to benefit from the amazing new ecats. I think you're hedging your bets now. The device as it is supposed to be would immediately and without any changes be an excellent heat source. That it may be, but we already have excellent heat sources, such as gas-fired space heaters, heat pumps and solar water heaters. None of those are excellent compared to an isolated ecat producing 12 kW without fuel. They need in order: gas, electricity or gas, daylight, plumbing, and and energy storage technology. There are many dimensions in which something can be excellent yet still uncompetitive in some markets. A ecat that does what Rossi claims now would be competitive in any market. Cold fusion does not need any fuel. You might think that would make it an unbeatable competitor. But the same can be said for solar water heating, solar power and wind power, yet these are not competitive in all markets. Cold fusion does not need fuel and is not intermittent. Check mate. No, not any cold environment. That depends on the initial cost of equipment, reliability and many other factors. What other factors. It depends on capital cost and reliability, but Rossi has already claimed costs that are certainly competitive. Reliability would have to be proven. That's true. Why are you arguing against ecats now? Because you think maybe they're not so great after all, and you're gonna need rationalization. You might as well line it up now.
Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.comwrote: It's not relevant, because his criticism is against innumeracy, which applies to such delusions as astrology and homeopathy, but not cold fusion, where the most serious advocates are scientists, who certainly know their differential equations. It's about pseudoscience in general, and he cites cold fusion specifically. Why would anyone mention cold fusion in 2011, and raise P F as the example, while neglecting Rossi? That's really bizarre. My guess is that he knows it will irk the believers even more if he ignores Rossi, than if he dumps on him. It seems to be working.
Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2
Apparently you don't understand LCOE (Levelized Cost Of Energy)? May I suggest you do some googling. ALL of the ways we generate energy have an infinite COP if you take away the energy content of the fuel that you need to supply to the generator. With some generators such as wind, solar, tidal, wave, geothermal, hydro, etc there is no fuel cost embodied into the input energy. Others such as coal, uranium, gas, oil, nickel, etc the fuel must be won from the earth and then processed. The fuel then has an embodied energy cost which is passed on to the energy generator owner as part of the cost of the fuel. LCOE sorts all this out and allows across the board comparisons of Gen A to Gen B to Gen C, etc on the basis of the LCOE of the delivered energy. On 12/16/2011 9:49 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: For the E-Cat or any other LENR generator to make inroads into the global energy generation market, the LCOE per kWh of delivered energy must be lower than from any other comparable energy sources or there is simply no market for it. Yup. That's a key point. You mean a market for the device as a practical source of energy. A person could sell eCats as experimental devices. You could sell thousands at a premium price to laboratories worldwide. Later you might even sell them as a novelty item, similar to today's high-end electric cars. Toys for rich people. Early automobiles and microcomputers were novelty items. The top of the LCOE scale probably starts as a drop it in a remote site (could be in outer space) somewhere and generate heat and electricity. For that market the acceptable LCOE of the delivered energy is very high. Yup again. Other examples of critical power that people will pay a premium for include: pacemaker batteries, heart assist pumps (Ventricular Assist Device), hearing aid batteries, watch batteries, remote telephone repeaters, cell phone batteries, aviation, and highway sensors (now served by solar panels). The technology has to be developed to a high state of reliability before such applications can be served. The same goes for military applications, as you pointed out. For domestic situations the max acceptable LCOE drops quite a bit and for on grid electricity generation the required LCOE hits rock bottom. Yup. Because of that, this is may be the last market you want to approach. See Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma for ideas about good markets to begin with. This book introduces the concepts of disruptive versus sustaining technology. These terms have become widely used clichés in modern business, but people often misunderstand the original concept. I discussed this book in chapter 7 of my book. I highly recommend reading the original. Christensen came out with a follow-up book which was also interesting. It needs editing. I don't understand any of that in the slightest. The device as it is supposed to be would immediately and without any changes be an excellent heat source. That's what makes the famous photo of Rossi, Levi and Focardi (was it?) huddled around the E-cat in huge winter coats so comical! Even as primitive a device as the early E-cats would be completely welcome as a space heater and hot water source in any cold environment. Imagine an isolated ski cabin in the Alps with no electricity. You wouldn't need to gather wood any more to keep warm all winter long. Same for cooking. But this is very silly conjecture. If the device worked, which is very doubtful at this point, it would be researched and rapidly improved and developed into much higher temperature regimes. That would make it suitable for propulsion and as a source of electricity. It would within a very few years have myriads of applications. And simply routing a bit of the output back to the input through a regulator would make it self sustaining. Of course all of that is just fanciful thinking and wishing.
Re: [Vo]:eCat Electric COP : 2
On 11-12-15 06:19 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: I don't understand any of that in the slightest. The device as it is supposed to be would immediately and without any changes be an excellent heat source. ... But this is very silly conjecture. If the device worked, which is very doubtful at this point, it would be researched and rapidly improved... Actually, if it worked, then Rossi would have a more than adequate market just selling the things to potential competitors who want to reverse engineer it. Forget end users! They require reliability, approvals, operating manuals, warranties -- all sorts of annoying stuff that competitors wouldn't care two shakes about. End users also require competitive pricing; potential competitors, OTOH, could easily recognize the value of the thing and would gladly pay outrageous amounts for single units.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On 15 December 2011 15:21, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Stored energy can only cause the temperature to decline monotonically, very rapidly at first (Newton's law of cooling). Yet this heat increased during the event. It is easy to create a system in which heat transfer is limited to a near constant value - as formation of steam can create a gas barrier that limits heat transfer (a problem in designing IC engine heads). Also we know that the water level was increasing so it is simple to envisage a system where heat transfer from stored heat increases as a result of increasing contact area between water and heat source. And to reiterate heat storage: Graphite can store up to 1.5kWh/kg or nearly 3kWh/l in a vacuum enclosure. 1.5GJ from 50 modules would only require about 16kg or 8 liters per module. There are also a lot of high heat of fusion materials: LiH that requires about 1.6kWh/kg to heat from room temp to melt at 960K (~1.3kWh/L) Silicon metal that releases 0.8kWh/kg to heat up and melt at 1700K (~1.9kWh/l) LiF that releases 0.6Wh/kg heating to melt at 1120K (~1.5kWh/L). Which is why Rossi needs to do a much higher standard of demo - he certainly hasn't produced results good enough to remove all doubt about fraud. Not that I believe Rossi is a total fraud, but I am fairly convinced that he is hiding some short-fall in performance (eg reaction duration or exaggerating power level) or he wouldn't have any reason to be so furtive in his demos. Interesting chat tonight with a professional energy trader who worked for one of the big international oil trading firms. He said that they were aware of Rossi, but after investigation regarded the likelihood of it being real as 0% - and that their trading would have been massively affected by even a 1% chance of it being real.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.comwrote: Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without being properly debunked? Are there any examples of new science remaining on the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream? Perpetual motion fits the first question. There are adherents to it that will claim it has not been debunked, and that's been centuries. There are a lot of medical claims that would also fit. Homeopathy, (straight) chiropractic, acupuncture, the vaccine-autism connection, psychic healing, or any paranormal phenomena. None of these are accepted by mainstream science, but will probably never be debunked to the satisfaction of their adherents. I have posed the latter is a question frequently, albeit qualified, and without a good response. There are some examples of theories or phenomena that took decades to be accepted, but not small-scale, bench-top type experiments. Examples include Wegener's continental drift, maybe black holes, and Lawrence cited a dinosaur theory. These are in fields that give up data greedily. The closest example of a small-scale theory that I have seen is Semmelweis's disinfection (hand-washing), which was ridiculed for a long time. But you have to go back 150 years for that example. I think most phenomena (especially in the physical sciences) that can be tested on a bench top, and that turn out to be real, were accepted pretty quickly. And revolutionary theories to explain a lot of well-established experimental results, like relativity and quantum mechanics were accepted almost as quickly as they were proposed. QM took time to be developed of course, but who could doubt that Bohr was on to something when quantization of the angular momentum reproduced the empirically determined Rydberg formula for atomic spectra? Rothwell likes to list various technologies that took time to develop, like the transistor and the laser (which did see some skepticism), but none of his favorite examples are anything close to case of cold fusion where the concept is rejected out of hand by the mainstream for 20 years. This year's nobel prize in chemistry represents another case of skepticism proved wrong. Shechtman's proposed quasicrystals were ridiculed (most vociferously by Linus Pauling who said there were no quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists), and he was kicked out of his research group. But the derision lasted only a couple of years, and he was published in PRL, at the height of it, and began getting awards soon after, culminating, in less than 20 years, in the nobel prize. Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they crave them. Fame, glory, funding, and adoration come to those who make breakthroughs, not those who add decimal places. The problem is, the revolutionary science has to be right...
[Vo]:Was Technetium ever detected in LENR experiments?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium * Technetium* ([image: play] /http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English t http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Keyɛhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key k http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Keyˈhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key n http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Keyiːhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key ʃ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Keyihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key ə http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Keymhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English *tek-nee-shee-əm*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pronunciation_respelling_key) is the chemical element http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element with atomic number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_number 43 and symbol *Tc*. It is the lowest atomic numberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_number element without any stable isotopes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_isotope; every form of it is radioactive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive. Nearly all technetium is produced synthetically and only minute amounts are found in nature. Naturally occurring technetium occurs as a spontaneous fission product http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_product in uranium orehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_ore or by neutron capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_capturein molybdenum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molybdenum ores. The chemical properties of this silvery gray, crystalline transition metalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_metal are intermediate between rhenium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhenium and manganese http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese. It would be at least an evidence for WL theory. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Why big energy wants to kill the LRET
Interesting read: http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/why-big-energy-wants-kill-lret Now imagine what would happen with a LENR generator with a LCOE below coal.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
There is an example that is interesting. Gravitational wave detection. As a practical field was created more than 40 years ago and no detection has been done yet. The theoretical prediction of gravitational waves by Einstein happened about 90 years ago. He claimed it was an interesting theoretical prediction but humankind would not ever be able to detect gravitational waves. A sociologist wrote a book on this field of science because it has been around for so long without a positive detection. Giovanni On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.comwrote: Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without being properly debunked? Are there any examples of new science remaining on the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream?
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On 16 December 2011 02:47, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they crave them. Fame, glory, funding, and adoration come to those who make breakthroughs, not those who add decimal places. The problem is, the revolutionary science has to be right... I think that the new superluminal neutrino finding was the best possible example, how fast revolutionary claims are accepted. And it was taken very joyfully by the scientific community, because they are eager to see new things. Of course there were some grey heads from the last century, even some Nobel laureates, who opposed the finding, because they believe that Einstein is the Truth, but they are very minority among scientist. (Although sometimes they are loud) I think that the nicest thing with this is, that we can rewrite many scifi books, because superluminal travelling is after all possible. And we do not need to invent silly fairy tales about Einstein-Rosen bridges (E.g. Carl Sagan in 'Contact'). –Jouni
