[Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

2011-03-04 Thread Alan J Fletcher
I initially commented on ways of faking and detecting the January 
setup in Physorg (posting as alanf777):


http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video.html

but discussion there has died down.

My basic methodology of eliminating fakes is to presume that the 
ENTIRE unobserved structure is made up of the fake material, and then 
calculate how long you would have to run it at the observed power 
levels to exhaust the material.


The December/January test was so short that a number of fakes could 
have done it.


For the February test (I wonder if Levi will issue a report) only ONE 
of my candidates is still in the running.


I've just finished writing this up at

http://lenr.qumbu.com/  (just an index page)  and  a first draft is at:

How to Make and Detect a FAKE Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR
http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v1.php

I've tried to identify who first proposed each specific fake.

If anyone's interested, I'll continue updating it.  Any comments are 
appreciated (directly or in this thread.)


Alan










RE: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

2011-03-04 Thread Jones Beene
Nice work.

I'm assuming that you recognize that there is a fair probability of the
Rossi device being gainful, in a non-chemical way and non-deceptive way ...
or else you would have remained at the higher comfort level of Physorg-style
reflexive tunnel-vision ... which most of those dinosaurs are afflicted
with.

Jones




-Original Message-
From: Alan J Fletcher 
Subject: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

I initially commented on ways of faking and detecting the January 
setup in Physorg (posting as alanf777):

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video.htm
l

but discussion there has died down.

My basic methodology of eliminating fakes is to presume that the 
ENTIRE unobserved structure is made up of the fake material, and then 
calculate how long you would have to run it at the observed power 
levels to exhaust the material.

The December/January test was so short that a number of fakes could 
have done it.

For the February test (I wonder if Levi will issue a report) only ONE 
of my candidates is still in the running.

I've just finished writing this up at

http://lenr.qumbu.com/  (just an index page)  and  a first draft is at:

How to Make and Detect a FAKE Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR
http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v1.php

I've tried to identify who first proposed each specific fake.

If anyone's interested, I'll continue updating it.  Any comments are 
appreciated (directly or in this thread.)

Alan












Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

2011-03-04 Thread Jed Rothwell
In the document you wrote:

For FUTURE WATER versions we need:

Input electrical power (BETWEEN the control panel and the reactor)

Why does this matter? What difference can it make? We know how much
electricity goes into the box, and there is no way more than that can go
into the machine.


Sealed unit, to prevent drawing air as a fuel.

It is sealed. There are no visible holes, according to Levi and other people
who have seen it close up. You would need large ventilation holes to sustain
combustion at ~12 kW. My home water heater puts out 12 kW. The flames and
ventilation holes are quite large, and you can easily see the flames. I
expect that a 130 kW reaction in a 1 L volume would be incandescent, so if
there were holes, you would notice.

This is a useful exercise, but bear in mind that during the February 10 run
the machine produced more than 1000 MJ. That is as much as 26 kg of gasoline
(39 L). The only active material was the mystery substance inside the 1 L
volume. No common chemical and very few exotic chemicals can produce more
energy than gasoline, and of course gasoline requires oxygen, so as a
practical matter this is far more than a chemical reaction can produce.

Levi concluded that this test eliminates any possibility that it is a
chemical reaction. I agree with him.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

2011-03-04 Thread Jed Rothwell
I wrote:


 No common chemical and very few exotic chemicals can produce more energy
 than gasoline . . .


By volume or by weight, as far as I know.

Gasoline produces ~45 MJ/kg according to most sources.

Wikipedia, which is sometimes good for something, says methane produces 50
MJ/kg. See:

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

I did not include hydrogen among common chemicals. As far as I know it is
the most energy dense chemical fuel by weight, at 142 MJ/kg. That's why they
use it for rocket fuel.

In my book, in chapter 1, p. 12, I discussed this issue by comparing a
hypothetical cell filled with hydrogen and oxygen to a cold fusion cell. I
was assuming that hydrogen and oxygen has more energy by weight than any
other chemical fuel. I am ignoring the weight of the container, and problems
with compressing the gas, and all other real-world considerations.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

2011-03-04 Thread Alan J Fletcher

At 01:34 PM 3/4/2011, you wrote:

In the document you wrote:

For FUTURE WATER versions we need:

Input electrical power (BETWEEN the control panel and the reactor)

Why does this matter? What difference can it make? We know how much 
electricity goes into the box, and there is no way more than that 
can go into the machine.


For the January test it would have eliminated the possibility of any 
hidden power coming from the Control Unit.

For future tests it would actually give a HIGHER power multiplication factor.

From http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm
 Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, 
closer to 20 W for 6 hours

 Observers estimated average power as 16 kW.

Power multiplier =  16 KW / 80W = 200
16KW / 20W = 800

If half of that went into driving the electronics:

 16KW / 10W = 16000

So this is to the non-fake advantage.

Of course, the excess power is a less dramatic number:

16KW - 80W  or 16KW - 10W makes no practical difference to the results.



Sealed unit, to prevent drawing air as a fuel.

It is sealed. There are no visible holes, according to Levi and 
other people who have seen it close up. You would need large 
ventilation holes to sustain combustion at ~12 kW. My home water 
heater puts out 12 kW. The flames and ventilation holes are quite 
large, and you can easily see the flames. I expect that a 130 kW 
reaction in a 1 L volume would be incandescent, so if there were 
holes, you would notice.


To TEST it you'd either have to seal it, or at least run a smoke test 
over the whole surface and see if it sucks in air or expells 
combustion products.


I draw the distinction between not NOTICED and tested and NOT FOUND.

Anything which is not TESTED must be ruled in favor of the FAKE.

This is a useful exercise, but bear in mind that during the February 
10 run the machine produced more than 1000 MJ. That is as much as 26 
kg of gasoline (39 L). The only active material was the mystery 
substance inside the 1 L volume. No common chemical and very few 
exotic chemicals can produce more energy than gasoline, and of 
course gasoline requires oxygen, so as a practical matter this is 
far more than a chemical reaction can produce.


As I said, the only candidates which are not ELIMINATED are 
Beryllium/Air and (probably -- I haven't calculated it yet) Beryllium/Oxygen.



Levi concluded that this test eliminates any possibility that it is 
a chemical reaction. I agree with him.


I agree with his informal statement.  I'm just putting numbers to it, 
as an upper bound.


Alan 



Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

2011-03-04 Thread Alan J Fletcher


At 01:46 PM 3/4/2011, you wrote:
I wrote:



No common chemical and very few exotic chemicals can produce more
energy than gasoline . . .


By volume or by weight, as far as I know.
Gasoline produces ~45 MJ/kg according to most sources.
Wikipedia, which is sometimes good for something, says methane produces
50 MJ/kg. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion
I did not include hydrogen among common chemicals. As far as
I know it is the most energy dense chemical fuel by weight, at 142 MJ/kg.
That's why they use it for rocket fuel.

I included compressed hydrogen/oxygen because they are readily
obtainable, and the by-product can easily be hidden (Jan:
vent through the steam outlet Feb: condense and vent through the water
outlet.)
In my book, in chapter 1, p. 12,
I discussed this issue by comparing a hypothetical cell filled with
hydrogen and oxygen to a cold fusion cell. I was assuming that hydrogen
and oxygen has more energy by weight than any other chemical fuel. I am
ignoring the weight of the container, and problems with compressing the
gas, and all other real-world considerations.
Book? I gotta read BOOKS ???  =8-)
- Jed
Nobody WEIGHED anything, so I have to use VOLUME.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density gives Gasoline 34
MJ/L Diesel 37.3 (with air from outside).
I just noticed that Boron is a bit higher than Beryllium (which I like,
because -- theoretically -- it could be self-contained.)
ps : I hoped that this would start a new thread .. but it's ending up in
the 1MW 





Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

2011-03-04 Thread Jed Rothwell

Alan J Fletcher wrote:

12 kW. The flames and ventilation holes are quite large, and you can 
easily see the flames. I expect that a 130 kW reaction in a 1 L 
volume would be incandescent, so if there were holes, you would notice.


To TEST it you'd either have to seal it, or at least run a smoke test 
over the whole surface and see if it sucks in air or expells 
combustion products.


I draw the distinction between not NOTICED and tested and NOT FOUND.


Actually, with a 12 kW reaction in a closed room you would not only 
notice most chemical reactions, you would be asphyxiated by many of 
them. There is no way you can burn something like gasoline without 
noticing the odor. You would be choking on the fumes. That is a serious 
assertion. The human nose is one of the best chemical detectors around, 
capable of detecting ppm amounts of many chemicals, and things like 
hydrogen sulfide at levels of 0.01 ppm (according to one source I just 
found).


The role of sulfur in early transistor research was first elucidated 
when one of the researchers smelled sulfur fumes after producing a batch 
of devices.


In other words, direct visual observation of light from incandescence, 
and smelling chemical products with the nose is a TEST as good as any 
you can perform with instruments. That's what I say to you young 
wiper-snappers. That's what doctors should learn about making diagnoses.


As far as I know, the only hydrocarbon fuels that you can burn in an 
enclosed room that would be both safe and not instantly detectable by 
sense of smell would be butane and hydrogen. I have no idea whether 
burning beryllium in air would produce an odor, but beryllium is one of 
the most dangerous elements, and if they were burning it in air, I think 
they would be dead. I am not being flippant. This is a reasonable way to 
analyze the likelihood of one reaction or another. It is a variation of 
the dead graduate student problem which proves beyond question that 
cold fusion is not plasma fusion. (Skeptics think it proves that cold 
fusion does not exist but I take a different lesson from the fact that 
cold fusion cells do not kill people with neutrons.)


- Jed



Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

2011-03-04 Thread Jed Rothwell

Alan J Fletcher wrote:


Book? I gotta read BOOKS ???=8-)


Hey, it's on line. Even on the Kindle. I think I have sold a dozen 
copies on the Kindle in two years.




Nobody WEIGHED anything, so I have to use VOLUME.


They weighed the hydrogen tank, before and after. That's a crude method, 
but if the gadget had been burning hydrogen from that tank, that would 
have been revealed.


They did not weight the whole Rossi gadget before and after as far as I 
know.


- Jed



Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

2011-03-04 Thread Alan J Fletcher



Book? I gotta read BOOKS ???=8-)
Hey, it's on line. Even on the Kindle. I think I have sold a dozen 
copies on the Kindle in two years.


I'll google it.

I looked at the combustion wiki, but they only give energy by weight. 
I'll stick with the energy density.


They weighed the hydrogen tank, before and after. That's a crude 
method, but if the gadget had been burning hydrogen from that tank, 
that would have been revealed.


I need to include that ... and calculate the energy it would have 
produced, if burned.  2g ... ?




Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

2011-03-04 Thread Alan J Fletcher


Jed Rothwell
: That's what I say to you young wiper-snappers.
I haven't been called a whipper-snapper in ... what .. 40 years or more
!
I do admit to being more of a reformed physicist than a reformed
chemist.
My background :
B.Sc. -- Physics and Math (1963) One course in
chemistry!
B.Sc Hons -- Physics (Yes .. it's a separate degree) (1965)
 I operated an ionosonde (swept-frequency radar) for
ionospheric research, 
 and built a Mills Cross radio telescope (with which I
observed the 1420 Mhz 
 hydrogen emission of the Galaxy. Either that, or a plot of
the temperature of the
 observing hut!)
M.Sc. -- Radio Astronomy (1967) -- Jodrell Bank


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01118/Jodrell_Bank_1118890c.jpg
 
 Yes, I've walked in the bowl (when parked) and climbed to
the focal point to test a new 
 antenna feed I'd designed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/images/2007/10/05/lovell_clouds_450_450x330.jpg

 The place was famous and got a lot of mail ..
congratulatory and crank.
 Professor (later Sir) Bernard Lovell insisted that
every letter was answered 
 The crank letters were delegated to staff, who
delegated them to students,
 to politely point out any scientific errors.
Ph.D. -- Computer Science (it wasn't called that, back then)
(1970).
I have to point out that I'm Units-confused. I suffered changes from FPS,
to cgs, to MKS to SI  so my memory of physical constants is very
haphazard.
(I would have been perfectly at home in NASA ...)
Since then I've been involved with Computer Aided Design / Electronic
Design Automation, but I've retained an active interest in science in
general and fringe science in particular.
The other influence was, of course, SF Quoting from a post I made on the
well -- my online home :
science 663: Cosmology and the Universe
#
591 of 1246: Repeal the Law of Gravity. Tue 08 Jan 2008 (10:48
AM) 
The 'next best thing' will quite possibly come from the
fringes/crackpot zone rather
than main-stream academia.

I remember an SF story from a LONG time ago .. about a father whose
son crawled under his bed and -- due to a some anomalous configuration
of matter -- opened into another dimension. Various scientists and
government officials arrived and pondered -- but the father eventually
just reached through, groped around and pulled the kid out. (I
don't
remember if the gap closed up).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Girl_Lost
Richard Matheson from his short story published in The Shores
of Space (1953)

I thought of this with respect to both cold fusion and Podkletnov's
home-brewed superconducting rotating disk antigravity generator. Maybe
it wasn't fake, and depended on some unknown crystal configuration.
Similarly, the cold fusion effects depend heavily on the structure on
the cathode. Some batches are 'hot', some are 'cold'. 




 





Re: [Vo]:How to Fake the Jan/Feb 10KW Demonstration

2011-03-04 Thread Horace Heffner


On Mar 4, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


I wrote:

No common chemical and very few exotic chemicals can produce more  
energy than gasoline . . .


By volume or by weight, as far as I know.



Even aluminum, silicon, and anthracite beat gasoline in MJ/liter.  See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg

Lithium borohydride beats it in MJ/kg.

As you can see from the above chart, silicon has a huge potential for  
energy storage and long distance transport of energy.  This was noted  
in the following,


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf

and not a new idea as can be seen by the the reference:

http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/ 
PROD00079095.pdf






Gasoline produces ~45 MJ/kg according to most sources.

Wikipedia, which is sometimes good for something, says methane  
produces 50 MJ/kg. See:


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

I did not include hydrogen among common chemicals. As far as I  
know it is the most energy dense chemical fuel by weight, at 142 MJ/ 
kg. That's why they use it for rocket fuel.


In my book, in chapter 1, p. 12, I discussed this issue by  
comparing a hypothetical cell filled with hydrogen and oxygen to a  
cold fusion cell. I was assuming that hydrogen and oxygen has more  
energy by weight than any other chemical fuel. I am ignoring the  
weight of the container, and problems with compressing the gas, and  
all other real-world considerations.


- Jed



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/