Re: [Vo]:My response to the demise of Coolescence

[Rich Murray]

Jed is convincing...



On Nov 2, 2017 12:40 PM, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> I regret to announce that Coolescence has closed their doors. They never
> were able to replicate excess heat. I think they ran out of money, and
> perhaps they ran out of gumption. That would be understandable.
>
> Over at CMNS, Ed Storms posted a melancholy comment about this. We are not
> supposed to quote CMNS but in this case I will take the liberty of quoting
> a short portion:
>
>
>> The skeptics will say, "Obviously, the better and more carefully the
>> studies are done, the less likely the false claims would result."  How can
>> we respond to such a conclusion?
>>
>
>
> Since I can quote myself as much as I like, here is what I wrote in
> response.
>
>
> . . . That is a good question. I think the answer is as follows --
>
> The most careful studies were done by people such as Mel Miles showed a
> positive effect.
>
> Coolescence tried to replicate Miles, but they failed. Miles says this is
> because they made mistakes in the replication. You can ask him for details.
>
> I conclude that they made mistakes in this replication, and in the other
> replications they attempted. I assume the original studies were positive
> and correct. Coolescence reported their results correctly, and these
> results were negative. The disconnect is in the experimental materials or
> procedures, not in the reporting.
>
> Here is why I reached this conclusion and why I think it is plausible.
>
>
> *Many Replications Fail Because This Experiment is Difficult*
>
> There were many failed replications in 1989, including many done by
> experienced scientists in well-equipped major laboratories. In most cases
> these failures occured because the scientists were not electrochemists;
> they did not consult with electrochemists, and they made elementary
> mistakes. I described an example on p. 10 and 11 here:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf
>
> There were some failed experiments conducted by experienced
> electrochemists. In a few cases it is likely these were false negatives.
> Here is a well-known example, by Lewis:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf
>
> This failure was not due to lack of skill or attention. Lewis did
> excellent work. His paper is good. It has many useful suggestions. His
> failure was in his analysis.
>
> Even people who succeeded from time to time in cold fusion often failed.
> Mel Miles worked for months before getting positive results. As I wrote
> here the other day, the research project at the University of Missouri has
> not worked well:
>
> Many techniques have been described in the literature that worked a few
> times spectacularly, but most of the time they do not work. They are
> irreproducible. The SuperWave technique once produced, "Excess Power of up
> to 34 watts; Average ~20 watts for 17 h." (http://www.lenr-canr.org/acro
> bat/DardikIexcessheat.pdf) I have heard that despite strenuous efforts,
> it has never done that at U. Missouri.
>
>
> I do not think these earlier results could be an error. 20 W is a lot of
> heat. With no input power it seems unlikely to me anyone would confuse zero
> watts with 20 W.
>
> Richard Oriani told me that in his 50-year career in electrochemistry, the
> Fleischmann Pons experiment was the most difficult one he did.
>
> Experiments and technologies that fail drastically are not uncommon. As
> Beaudette pointed out, to clone the first sheep, biologists had to make
> hundreds of attempts before one finally worked. Billions of dollars have
> been invested in rocket technology. Every rocket launch costs millions of
> dollars. Rockets carry satellites worth millions more. Despite these high
> stakes, rockets often explode. The technology is not reliable.
>
> It makes no sense to say that cold may not exist because it is so
> difficult to replicate. No one would claim that rockets do not exist
> because they are unreliable.
>
>
> *You Need A PhD in Electrochemistry*
>
> As far as I know, everyone who replicated cold fusion had a PhD in
> electrochemistry, or they worked with people who did. I am not sure about
> Storms at Los Alamos, but Los Alamos is chock-full of experts in every
> subject. Coolescence may have had first-class instruments but they probably
> did not have the kind of expertise on tap that Storms did. I do not know
> whether anyone at Coolescence has a PhD in electrochemistry. I do not think
> so. That is my impression talking to Mel Miles. If professionals at a place
> like Kamiokande failed for lack of electrochemical expertise, it would not
> surprise me if the people at Coolescence also failed for this reason.
>
> I do not know much about electrochemistry but I have spent a lot of time
> editing papers about it and listening to people such as Mizuno, McKubre,
> Miles, Bockris and Fleischman talk about it. They know a terrific amount
> about the subject. Enough to write a textbook. Bockris *did* write an
> authoritative textboo

Re: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage

[Jed Rothwell]

bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:

An old submarine hull (ridged structure) would work nicely as a reservoir.
>

That's an underwater reservoir:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity#Underwater_reservoirs

That is MUCH too small. It has to have hundreds or even thousands of times
more capacity than that to hold a significant amount of energy. The water
pressure is low. The reservoir is not far below sea level. It is not like a
dam with water falling hundreds of feet.

Typical pumped storage lakes are 30 to 50 million cubic meters.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

An old submarine hull (ridged structure) would work nicely as a reservoir.  
Anchor the old hull bow down with a pipe to the surface  in the stern and some 
remote operational valves installed in one or more torpedo tubes at the front 
door(s) of the tube(s).  install a screen on the outside of the hull with a 
high pressure nozzle(s) to clean the screen based on a measured pressure drop 
across the screen.

Install one or more  turbines in the tubes.  With energy to store pump the hull 
empty.  To use the stored energy, open the front doors and the vent pipe to the 
surface.  Regenerate electrical energy via water flowing into the hull under 
pressure at the depth of the anchored hull.  It would be a nice constant 
pressure to run the turbines.

Hulls could be anchored in clean water to avoid clogging the screens 
excessively.  The bigger the hull and the deeper it is anchored would determine 
the amount of energy stored.  It would be significant.

Bob Cook

From: David L. Babcock
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 10:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage

You and I concur on all the details of a workable solution -it was just that I 
thought I clearly read that it was a flexible structure…
Ol’ Bab

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jed Rothwell
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 7:55 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage

David L. Babcock mailto:olb...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I read the hole-in-water one. All BS, and stupid. To get a “head” the hole has 
to be not just empty when the seawater enters, it has to have a rigid shape. 
But when empty, and 100 feet deep, the upward pressure on the bottom will be 50 
psi . . .

I believe you are envisioning something like a single structure. A gigantic 
bathtub or ship hull. I do not think that is what this "hole in the ocean" will 
be. It will resemble a dike in the Netherlands or New Orleans, below sea level. 
Or like a earthen dam. No doubt some water will leak through the walls but 
earthen dams work well and do not leak much.

Water is let into the structure in one place only, where the generator turbines 
are located. This is like putting turbines in one part of a dam and forcing all 
of the water to go through them.

There would be no "upward pressure" and no structure to push up. It is just a 
large lake that happens be located in the ocean. If you were to go to an island 
and dig a pond in the middle of it, digging until it goes below sea level, you 
would have a similar structure. The walls and bottom of the pond would be rocks 
and sand, not anything that can pop up.

You could build a similar structure next to a large lake (such as one of the 
Great Lakes) or the Hudson River. It would be large hole that extends well 
below the surface of the lake or river, located perhaps a kilometer away from 
the lake.

- Jed

[Vo]:My response to the demise of Coolescence

[Jed Rothwell]

I regret to announce that Coolescence has closed their doors. They never
were able to replicate excess heat. I think they ran out of money, and
perhaps they ran out of gumption. That would be understandable.

Over at CMNS, Ed Storms posted a melancholy comment about this. We are not
supposed to quote CMNS but in this case I will take the liberty of quoting
a short portion:


> The skeptics will say, "Obviously, the better and more carefully the
> studies are done, the less likely the false claims would result."  How can
> we respond to such a conclusion?
>


Since I can quote myself as much as I like, here is what I wrote in
response.


. . . That is a good question. I think the answer is as follows --

The most careful studies were done by people such as Mel Miles showed a
positive effect.

Coolescence tried to replicate Miles, but they failed. Miles says this is
because they made mistakes in the replication. You can ask him for details.

I conclude that they made mistakes in this replication, and in the other
replications they attempted. I assume the original studies were positive
and correct. Coolescence reported their results correctly, and these
results were negative. The disconnect is in the experimental materials or
procedures, not in the reporting.

Here is why I reached this conclusion and why I think it is plausible.


*Many Replications Fail Because This Experiment is Difficult*

There were many failed replications in 1989, including many done by
experienced scientists in well-equipped major laboratories. In most cases
these failures occured because the scientists were not electrochemists;
they did not consult with electrochemists, and they made elementary
mistakes. I described an example on p. 10 and 11 here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf

There were some failed experiments conducted by experienced
electrochemists. In a few cases it is likely these were false negatives.
Here is a well-known example, by Lewis:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf

This failure was not due to lack of skill or attention. Lewis did excellent
work. His paper is good. It has many useful suggestions. His failure was in
his analysis.

Even people who succeeded from time to time in cold fusion often failed.
Mel Miles worked for months before getting positive results. As I wrote
here the other day, the research project at the University of Missouri has
not worked well:

Many techniques have been described in the literature that worked a few
times spectacularly, but most of the time they do not work. They are
irreproducible. The SuperWave technique once produced, "Excess Power of up
to 34 watts; Average ~20 watts for 17 h." (http://www.lenr-canr.org/acro
bat/DardikIexcessheat.pdf) I have heard that despite strenuous efforts, it
has never done that at U. Missouri.


I do not think these earlier results could be an error. 20 W is a lot of
heat. With no input power it seems unlikely to me anyone would confuse zero
watts with 20 W.

Richard Oriani told me that in his 50-year career in electrochemistry, the
Fleischmann Pons experiment was the most difficult one he did.

Experiments and technologies that fail drastically are not uncommon. As
Beaudette pointed out, to clone the first sheep, biologists had to make
hundreds of attempts before one finally worked. Billions of dollars have
been invested in rocket technology. Every rocket launch costs millions of
dollars. Rockets carry satellites worth millions more. Despite these high
stakes, rockets often explode. The technology is not reliable.

It makes no sense to say that cold may not exist because it is so difficult
to replicate. No one would claim that rockets do not exist because they are
unreliable.


*You Need A PhD in Electrochemistry*

As far as I know, everyone who replicated cold fusion had a PhD in
electrochemistry, or they worked with people who did. I am not sure about
Storms at Los Alamos, but Los Alamos is chock-full of experts in every
subject. Coolescence may have had first-class instruments but they probably
did not have the kind of expertise on tap that Storms did. I do not know
whether anyone at Coolescence has a PhD in electrochemistry. I do not think
so. That is my impression talking to Mel Miles. If professionals at a place
like Kamiokande failed for lack of electrochemical expertise, it would not
surprise me if the people at Coolescence also failed for this reason.

I do not know much about electrochemistry but I have spent a lot of time
editing papers about it and listening to people such as Mizuno, McKubre,
Miles, Bockris and Fleischman talk about it. They know a terrific amount
about the subject. Enough to write a textbook. Bockris *did* write an
authoritative textbook. Here is the point: you have to know thousands of
details about electrochemistry, if you get a single detail wrong the
experiment may not work. You will not know why.

According to Mizuno, McKubre and others, getting a PhD in electrochemistry
is li