Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into x/((x+(1- x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of the volume expelled is water, and 2% steam - your starting assumptions. As a double check on this discussion, you should note that they have now run the cell with hot water only, no phase change, and they found it recovered even more heat than with the phase change. So this speculation about wet steam and greatly reduced enthapy is incorrect. Evidently Dr. Galantini was correct, and the steam was dry. Either that or these estimates of the enthalpy of wet steam are incorrect. I do not know which true, and it does not matter. A different method has now been used to confirm the original conclusion. - Jed I look forward to the report. This is obviously well beyond chemical if the consumables actually are H and Ni. The energy E per H is: E = (270kwh) /(0.4 g * Na / (1 gm/mol)) = 2.52x10^4 eV / H = 25 kEv per atom of H. On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: This morning I have received this from Giuseppe Levi re this test : Average flux in that test was 1 liter per second (measured by me many times during the test). No steam. MINIMUM power measured was 15 kW for 18h. 0.4g H2 consumed. This means that a 270 kWh = 972 MJ where at least produced. This is an under estimation. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
OK, gentlemen, now you have a steamless- Wasser uber alles experiment too. Peter On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.nethheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: |One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And |since the steam is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe through liquid, which would |presumably turn the liquid into a fine mist after a few minutes. The above appears to to be a typo. It was probably meant to say: One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by *volume* to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by *mass*. | Well maybe a question of semantics, and some rounding errors. | Try this: It takes only 2% of the H2O by mass, in the form of steam, to make up 97% of the expelled water by volume. Better. It is a matter of definitions. However, I think 2% steam by mass in your original statement means 2% wet steam that is to say 2% of the mass is water, 98% is steam, by mass. It wouldn't make any sense vice versa, i.e. 2% by mass vapor, and 98% mass in liquid. But that last formulation makes perfect sense, I think, .. and I said I thought it was better. and is surely what Joshua wrote. In Joshua's scenario, each gram of effluent consists of 980 milligrams of liquid water, in the form of tiny droplets taking up just under a milliliter of total volume, and just 20 milligrams of vapor, in the form of gas. None the less, the 20 milligrams of vapor, being enormously less dense, constitute nearly all the *volume* of the effluent -- thus, it's 97.5% vapor, by volume, because the vapor is taking up about 39 milliliters of space, to the single ml being consumed by the liquid. By *volume*, this stuff Joshua is describing would be 2.5% liquid water, or, one might say, 97.5% dry steam. Only 2.5% of the *mass* of the water has been vaporized in this scenario, so the heat of vaporization required will be about 40 times *smaller* than that required to fully vaporize the water. What doesn't make sense? Is it that the expansion factor for liquid-vapor Joshua used is too large? No, it is a matter of definitions, as I said. Such a 2% wet by mass steam takes 98% of the vaporization energy to create vs dry steam. What I provided were the numbers for 2% wet by volume steam, that is to say 2% of the volume of the ejected fluid being liquid. I think you and Joshua were talking about the same thing, really. Yes, I merely pointed out what appeared to be a typo - of the kind I make often, exchanging terms. Or maybe I'm just tired. I should go to bed. I think Joshua and I both have a grasp on the basic principles involved, and both of us know it. I provided both forwards and backwards calculations of the values in question (but which were unfortunately cut above), so that should be good enough to demonstrate that I understand the principles I think. Below are the values discussed regarding this experiment in tabular form. Liquid LiquidGas Portion Portion Portion by Volume by Mass by Mass - --- --- 0.010 0.9439 0.0560 0.020 0.971440.02856 0.028560.98 0.02 The problem, to me, centered on the meaning of 2% steam. When this phrase is used it typically (AFAIK) means 2% wet steam, i.e 2% of the steam is water. That can be by 2% water of total mass or 2% water of total volume, but I think is usually expressed in terms of water by mass. Therefore, when I saw 2% steam by mass, it appeared Joshua was talking about 2% water by mass, and 98% vapor by mass. I doubt that anyone normally talks abut 98% steam, especially when talking about dry steam, because that quickly will be pure water, i.e. it is 98% water by mass, and probably unmistakable to the eye as dry steam. In the case of Rossi's experiment there was some doubt and discussion about how accurate the measurement could be, because the value was determined by steam capacitance, and thus might be by volume. All talk of relative humidity (RH), which the instrument actually measured in a limited range which did not include 99-100%, seemed nonsensical when applied to dry steam. A 1% error by volume could mean a 94.4% error in heat, and the instrument was rated as only 2.7% accurate in its valid range. In any case Joshua's statement did not make sense to me as written, but made total sense as corrected, given a very small error in the third place. Note in the table that 2% steam by volume is coincidentally 97.144 % steam by mass (but not 98% or 97.5%). That is to say, if 2% of
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: That said, let's proceed on with your defined problem where 2% of the water is vaporized, i.e. the ejecta is 98% liquid by mass, 98% wet by mass. |For an input flow rate of 300 cc/min = 300 mg/min, The above should read g/min, i.e. grams per minute, not milligrams per minute. Oops. Yes, that should have been grams, and similarly 6 g/min for the steam flow rate, and the density should have been .6 mg/cc (not micrograms). Fortunately, my kiloerrors cancelled and the conclusion was still right. As you verified.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into x/((x+(1-x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of the volume expelled is water, and 2% steam - your starting assumptions. As a double check on this discussion, you should note that they have now run the cell with hot water only, no phase change, and they found it recovered even more heat than with the phase change. So this speculation about wet steam and greatly reduced enthapy is incorrect. Evidently Dr. Galantini was correct, and the steam was dry. Either that or these estimates of the enthalpy of wet steam are incorrect. I do not know which true, and it does not matter. A different method has now been used to confirm the original conclusion. So the flawed public demo has been vindicated by a private unofficial demo. As David Letterman used to say when Dick Cheney said the war in Iraq was going well: That's good enough for me.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: I look forward to the report. This is obviously well beyond chemical if the consumables actually are H and Ni. The energy E per H is: E = (270kwh) /(0.4 g * Na / (1 gm/mol)) = 2.52x10^4 eV / H = 25 kEv per atom of H. On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: This morning I have received this from Giuseppe Levi re this test : Average flux in that test was 1 liter per second (measured by me many times during the test). No steam. MINIMUM power measured was 15 kW for 18h. 0.4g H2 consumed. This means that a 270 kWh = 972 MJ where at least produced. This is an under estimation. A few questions come to mind. If they consume only .4 g hydrogen, did they still have a 14 kg bottle of H2 connected? Only about 1 /40 of that hydrogen is needed to produce the energy claimed if the reaction is nuclear. What happens to the rest of the hydrogen? How many of those hours did it run without input electricity?
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Joshua: A few clarifications from you would be helpful... Jed wrote: You do have to trust Levi, Celani and Dufour and some other people. To which Joshua stated: Why? They were hand-picked by Rossi. Where is your evidence that the scientists that were there to instrument the demo were 'hand-picked by Rossi? The demo was by invitation only. I assumed Rossi okayed the invitations. Maybe it was his partner. Same objection applies though. Joshua stated: And since the steam is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe through liquid, which would presumably turn the liquid into a fine mist after a few minutes... Again, where did you get this detail about the operation of the reactor? I have not seen ANY description of how the water is circulated inside the reactor, nor, and more importantly, the location of where the intense heat source is that actually vaporizes the water. Read the reports. Levi's labels the horiz part as the reactor, and that of course is where the radiation detector is placed, and he calls the vertical part a pipe. In Villa's report, he writes: ... horizontal metallic tube (...) as the reaction chamber, a vertical tube for steam output They could be wrong, but that's where it came from.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Joshua, Perhaps *a possibly flawed demo* would be more fair and more technical. It was flawed in that data to prove the steam was dry was not given, the pump model was not provided, the hydrogen bottle was left connected, and the input electricity could not be turned off. I am convinced that: - a) the steam was bone dry; Regardless of what is happening in the unofficial demo, I will remain convinced the steam was sopping wet until someone explains how a system that takes 30 minutes to go from 0 to 1 kW can go from 1 kW to 10 kW in a minute or so, why it remains pinned at the boiling point, and how the temperature can dip briefly below 100C if the steam was dry, requiring toggling between 10 kW and 1 kW power in a few minutes.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
This is a resend test. I sent this yesterday, but it did not show up in the archives. Something is going wrong with vortex-l. On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: |One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And |since the steam is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe through liquid, which would |presumably turn the liquid into a fine mist after a few minutes. The above appears to to be a typo. It was probably meant to say: One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by *volume* to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by *mass*. | Well maybe a question of semantics, and some rounding errors. | Try this: It takes only 2% of the H2O by mass, in the form of steam, to make up 97% of the expelled water by volume. Better. It is a matter of definitions. However, I think 2% steam by mass in your original statement means 2% wet steam that is to say 2% of the mass is water, 98% is steam, by mass. It wouldn't make any sense vice versa, i.e. 2% by mass vapor, and 98% mass in liquid. But that last formulation makes perfect sense, I think, .. and I said I thought it was better. and is surely what Joshua wrote. In Joshua's scenario, each gram of effluent consists of 980 milligrams of liquid water, in the form of tiny droplets taking up just under a milliliter of total volume, and just 20 milligrams of vapor, in the form of gas. None the less, the 20 milligrams of vapor, being enormously less dense, constitute nearly all the volume of the effluent -- thus, it's 97.5% vapor, by volume, because the vapor is taking up about 39 milliliters of space, to the single ml being consumed by the liquid. By volume, this stuff Joshua is describing would be 2.5% liquid water, or, one might say, 97.5% dry steam. Only 2.5% of the mass of the water has been vaporized in this scenario, so the heat of vaporization required will be about 40 times smaller than that required to fully vaporize the water. What doesn't make sense? Is it that the expansion factor for liquid-vapor Joshua used is too large? No, it is a matter of definitions, as I said. Such a 2% wet by mass steam takes 98% of the vaporization energy to create vs dry steam. What I provided were the numbers for 2% wet by volume steam, that is to say 2% of the volume of the ejected fluid being liquid. I think you and Joshua were talking about the same thing, really. Yes, I merely pointed out what appeared to be a typo - of the kind I make often, exchanging terms. Or maybe I'm just tired. I should go to bed. I think Joshua and I both have a grasp on the basic principles involved, and both of us know it. I provided both forwards and backwards calculations of the values in question (but which were unfortunately cut above), so that should be good enough to demonstrate that I understand the principles I think. Below are the values discussed regarding this experiment in tabular form. Liquid LiquidGas PortionPortion Portion by Volume by Mass by Mass - --- --- 0.010 0.9439 0.0560 0.020 0.971440.02856 0.028560.98 0.02 The problem, to me, centered on the meaning of 2% steam. When this phrase is used it typically (AFAIK) means 2% wet steam, i.e 2% of the steam is water. That can be by 2% water of total mass or 2% water of total volume, but I think is usually expressed in terms of water by mass. Therefore, when I saw 2% steam by mass, it appeared Joshua was talking about 2% water by mass, and 98% vapor by mass. I doubt that anyone normally talks abut 98% steam, especially when talking about dry steam, because that quickly will be pure water, i.e. it is 98% water by mass, and probably unmistakable to the eye as dry steam. In the case of Rossi's experiment there was some doubt and discussion about how accurate the measurement could be, because the value was determined by steam capacitance, and thus might be by volume. All talk of relative humidity (RH), which the instrument actually measured in a limited range which did not include 99-100%, seemed nonsensical when applied to dry steam. A 1% error by volume could mean a 94.4% error in heat, and the instrument was rated as only 2.7% accurate in its valid range. In any case Joshua's statement did not make sense to me as written, but made total sense as corrected, given a very small error in the third place. Note in the table that 2% steam by volume is coincidentally 97.144 % steam by mass (but not 98% or 97.5%). That is to say, if 2%
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
This is a resend test to see if this shows up in the archives this time. On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into x/((x+(1- x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of the volume expelled is water, and 2% steam - your starting assumptions. As a double check on this discussion, you should note that they have now run the cell with hot water only, no phase change, and they found it recovered even more heat than with the phase change. So this speculation about wet steam and greatly reduced enthapy is incorrect. Evidently Dr. Galantini was correct, and the steam was dry. Either that or these estimates of the enthalpy of wet steam are incorrect. I do not know which true, and it does not matter. A different method has now been used to confirm the original conclusion. - Jed I look forward to the report. This is obviously well beyond chemical if the consumables actually are H and Ni. The energy E per H is: E = (270kwh) /(0.4 g * Na / (1 gm/mol)) = 2.52x10^4 eV / H = 25 kEv per atom of H. On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: This morning I have received this from Giuseppe Levi re this test : Average flux in that test was 1 liter per second (measured by me many times during the test). No steam. MINIMUM power measured was 15 kW for 18h. 0.4g H2 consumed. This means that a 270 kWh = 972 MJ where at least produced. This is an under estimation. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The professors tested and calibrated this machine for 6 weeks. They would have discovered that it has a large hidden thermal mass. They did. It takes 30 minutes to bring the temperature up to the level needed to deliver water at 100C. They reportedly had difficulty turning on the excess heat in that run. It would never have risen to 100 deg C without excess heat There could have been some chemical heat. What's your point? My point about the calibrations may be unclear. When you calibrate a system like this, turning on the electric heater only without hydrogen in the nickel, and in various other tests, the presence of a large thermal mass would be revealed. I understood the point. But in the absence of hydrogen, the system would heat up more slowly than it did in test 2, and the rate it heats up there, with 1 kW input already indicates a large thermal mass. The fact that excess heat is claimed, and the gradient is still slow, emphasizes the thermal mass, it doesn't negate it. Whatever. My suspicions do not require any of that. Just some thermal mass inside that giant tin-foil phallus. That's funny! Phallus indeed. As I said, the calibration would reveal that. People experienced in flow calorimetry would see it easily. The warm-up period *does* reveal it. Anyone can see it easily. No one in the experiment ever mentions the system's heat capacity. They certainly don't deny it has a thermal mass, and don't seem to be aware of the relevance of its thermal mass to their measurements. If it didn't have a large thermal mass, the water would jump immediately to at least 70C when 1.2 kW was applied. But it doesn't. It heats up slowly. And it cools off slowly too after shut down. Thermal mass!
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Well, it is if an experiment can be easily designed to make such suspicions impossible. As would be the case here, if the claims were true. Seriously, It is nearly impossible to design a demonstration that will eliminate all suspicions, in all people. Some people, such as Robert Park, simply will not believe a claim, no matter how much evidence you present. Even if Park were to attend a first-rate demonstration of the Rossi device, one that addresses all of the issues raised here, he would refuse to believe it. He would make up other objections. I mean it when I say that people can make up unlimited numbers of reasons to dismiss a finding. This is so profoundly wrong I can't believe you keep repeating it. If your predictions for cold fusion were to come to pass, and cars would never need refueling if they contained D-Pd or H-Ni in the magic configuration, and if homes could be powered by a D-Pd generator, and if oil wells and coal mines would shut down, and CO2 levels began to drop, all while our increasing energy needs were easily satisfied by D-Pd or H-Ni, you can't seriously believe that Bob Park and his ilk would continue to be skeptical of this new energy source. Disagreement about mechanism might persist, but not about the energy. Or, you are admitting that it is nearly impossible that such a future will come to pass. And while I chose such an extreme to contradict the absolute statement, far less is required to completely remove skepticism, and it has been repeatedly spelled out. If Rossi came in with a device of roughly the same size and weight, and set it in the center of the conference room with nothing connected to it; no wires, no hydrogen lines, nothing. And it gave off 1 kW of heat continuously for several hours with no change in appearance or mass, he'd have the rapt attention of the room. One kW is a familiar amount of power, being comparable to hair driers, toasters, kettles, and space heaters, so people would know about how much heat to expect. If that device kept throwing heat for a day or a week, and esp. if such a device were given over to skeptics' custody (with appropriate legal and video control on tampering), the skepticism would melt away. But Rossi's device was not even close to this. It had electrical connections providing up to 1.5 kW input, and hydrogen lines, and therefore requiring much more careful measurement of output power. I am quite certain that as long as cold fusion demonstrations depend on the measurement of output power, the world will ignore them. The claim is of an energy source a million times that of chemical sources, and yet chemical sources do not need power measurements to prove they are real. As someone here said, I know combustion of natural gas produces heat because my house is warmer than the outside. And Rossi's measurement of output power is so ambiguous as to be laughable. It can change by a factor of 8 without any change in the reported measurements (flow rate temperature). The only thing that changes over that range of power is the wetness of the steam, a rather more subtle measurement, the raw values of which were not even given, let alone given as a function of time. Finally, the short duration of the demo and the likelihood of less than 1 kW power beyond the electrical input, make it quite unremarkable, which is of course why it has got so little attention. The scientific method demands that an arbitrary limit be placed on objections. It is a matter of opinion how much proof is needed, and how many objections should be met, but you cannot leave the question undecided indefinitely. I don't know where you get your information about the scientific method, but this is quite the opposite of the way I understand science. There is no limit on objections, and questions are never settled. In religion, where faith is a virtue, questions are settled, but in science where faith is a vice, there are only greater and lesser degrees of certainty. Of course, many observations, and even some theories, reach the point of virtual certainty, but to suggest that has been reached by an experiment with restricted access, not independently replicated, and where measurements are clearly ambiguous and controversial is completely at odds with the scientific method. Reasonable objections, such as those raised with the Rossi device, are easily dealt with by independent replication, or at the very least unrestricted access by observers, who could rather quickly, and transparently, determine the liquid content of the steam. Claims of flow-rate, no matter how simple, are checked and rechecked in independent experiments. The sort of query about flow rate would never come up in legitimate scientific settings, because the model of pump would be reported. Even in the demo, the use of a single reservoir without refilling would
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: The scientific method demands that an arbitrary limit be placed on objections. It is a matter of opinion how much proof is needed, and how many objections should be met, but you cannot leave the question undecided indefinitely. . . . In this case, I think we need to start drawing some limits to some objections. Skeptical arguments must meet the same level of rigor as any other. I think concerns about the flow rate should be dismissed. I don't care about pump specifications someone found on the Internet. The methods Levi et al. used to measure flow are rock solid and it is silly to dispute them. It is silly to leave objections like this in the air, when they are so easy to answer. Just give the model of the pump. Is that so hard? The more they neglect to do that, the more justified the suspicion becomes. But they used less than 20 L of water, and 20 L water containers are commonplace. Wouldn't it have been easy to simply use that, without any refilling, so at the end of the experiment, the total water through the system could be estimated with a simple photo?
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Gotta run. I'll catch up in 3 or 4 days. Don't take my absence as a concession. Concession to what? We are truthseekers, not competitors. Truth-seekers can disagree, and therefore can also concede. If you are an eternal septic, you will never be convinced. Not true. I have described what it would take to convince me (and so has Jed Rothwell), and if cold fusion could deliver a tiny fraction of what has been promised for 22 years, my criteria would be easily met. Albedo5 (who ran the septic forum on CompuServe) once said If a UFO landed on my front lawn and an alien came in and bit me on the arse, I'm not sure I would believe it. sigh T
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On 02/18/2011 06:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Hi, Putt putt boats draw in water which flashes into steam and is then ejected mostly as fluid. Given that the water was delivered to Rossi's device in pulses, it seems possible that it also ejected water in pulses, at least to some extent, as the leading edge of each pulse flashed into steam. Since the outlet was directed down a drain this might not be noticed. IOW that's the pump may also have been the concurrent sound of a pulse of water being ejected. Sigh Excellent point. We have been told that for most of the demo the hose was sealed into a drain, with the effluent not visible to anyone. Consequently, as you say, the thing could have been spitting a mixture of water and steam for most of the demo without anyone being the wiser. Quite some time back I wrote that it seemed clear the steam was pretty dry, based in large part on the assumption that the end of the hose was visible throughout the run. I was quite wrong; in fact it's not even necessarily true that the steam was actually steam for the whole duration of the run. Too bad the details of the so-called RH measurements weren't published, eh? The published reports on this demo are so far from being anything deserving of the name paper that it's laughable. Really, there was so much wrong with this demonstration, I think it's fair to say that the only apparently solid evidence that this device actually works comes from *other* demonstrations which have been done, for which there are no published reports at all -- in other words, all we've got is HEARSAY. My current guess is that, in the end, this is going to be a PR disaster for cold fusion, particularly since a number of sincere cold fusion advocates seem totally convinced that it's real, and are not shy about telling people so. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: It is silly to leave objections like this in the air, when they are so easy to answer. Just give the model of the pump. Is that so hard? The more they neglect to do that, the more justified the suspicion becomes. No, it isn't hard, but they are not neglecting the issue. They are unaware of the fact that you and others suspect that the pump may be a problem. No one has communicated this to them, as far as I know. They have no reason to tell you the exact pump model. Let me explain. There can be no rational question that these people can read a weight scale, and use a graduated cylinder. There are no rational reasons to doubt the flow rate. The reasons you come up with are mere excuses. You are moving the goalposts to evade the issue. Even if someone were to give you the model number, you would demand proof they are not lying or that it really was the model. Since you do not trust they can read a weight scale, why should you trust they will give you the right model number? You demand they use a bigger reservoir, enough to last 1 hour. Suppose they do? You will then demand a 2-hour reservoir. Then you will demand proof that there is not a block of glass or something in the reservoir taking up space, making the capacity look bigger than it is. Then you will demand something else, and something else after that. Skeptics can play this game indefinitely, moving the goalposts down the field, outside the stadium, and into the next county. If you abandon reasonable, scientific standards and declare that people cannot be depended upon to read a weight scale, that is tantamount to saying you not trust these people. You think they not even minimally competent to do a grade-school level task. Or you think they are dishonest. Nothing they can do or say will convince you of anything. In that case, you are not serious, and they are justified in ignoring your demands. So am I, and that is what I intend to do. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 02/18/2011 06:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Hi, Putt putt boats draw in water which flashes into steam and is then ejected mostly as fluid. Given that the water was delivered to Rossi's device in pulses, it seems possible that it also ejected water in pulses, at least to some extent, as the leading edge of each pulse flashed into steam. Since the outlet was directed down a drain this might not be noticed. IOW that's the pump may also have been the concurrent sound of a pulse of water being ejected. Sigh Excellent point. We have been told that for most of the demo the hose was sealed into a drain, with the effluent not visible to anyone. Consequently, as you say, the thing could have been spitting a mixture of water and steam for most of the demo without anyone being the wiser. Quite some time back I wrote that it seemed clear the steam was pretty dry, based in large part on the assumption that the end of the hose was visible throughout the run. I was quite wrong; in fact it's not even necessarily true that the steam was actually steam for the whole duration of the run. One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And since the steam is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe through liquid, which would presumably turn the liquid into a fine mist after a few minutes. Too bad the details of the so-called RH measurements weren't published, eh? The published reports on this demo are so far from being anything deserving of the name paper that it's laughable. Really, there was so much wrong with this demonstration, I think it's fair to say that the only apparently solid evidence that this device actually works comes from *other* demonstrations which have been done, for which there are no published reports at all -- in other words, all we've got is HEARSAY. My current guess is that, in the end, this is going to be a PR disaster for cold fusion, particularly since a number of sincere cold fusion advocates seem totally convinced that it's real, and are not shy about telling people so. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On 02/21/2011 09:41 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: It is silly to leave objections like this in the air, when they are so easy to answer. Just give the model of the pump. Is that so hard? The more they neglect to do that, the more justified the suspicion becomes. No, it isn't hard, but they are not neglecting the issue. They are unaware of the fact that you and others suspect that the pump may be a problem. No one has communicated this to them, as far as I know. They have no reason to tell you the exact pump model. I disagree, Jed. If anything resembling a paper had actually been produced for this experiment, it would have included a description of the equipment used in testing, along with make and model. That's just standard procedure, at least in scientific papers I've seen. And, included in the description, there would have been a statement of the pump model number, along with the relative humidity probe model number used. That's *normal*, and since it wasn't given, asking about it is normal, too. Refusing to answer the question, and accusing the asker of being a hysterical skeptic because they asked the question, is *not* normal. If there had been any kind of real paper on this, it would also have included data for the output of the RH probe, along with an explanation of how that data was used to determine that the steam was dry. But there wasn't, and all we've got is handwaving and a lot of speculation. There would have been some statement as to how the observers knew the hose was dumping only steam into the drain, rather than a mix of steam and hot water, once the end of the hose had been sealed out of view. But there wasn't; instead, all we've got is speculation about whistling noises and gurgles from the pump. There would have been a graph of temperature versus time which actually had axis labels, and if there were screen shots, they would have been readable. We don't have any of this. We just have Levi's report, which is almost worthless, and we have hearsay to the effect that in some OTHER experimental runs, for which we don't even have the level of reporting we had here, much more impressive things were done. I'm sorry, this doesn't cut it, and accusing someone who remains unconvinced by this demo of being a pathological skeptic is totally unjustified. The demo might have been a dog and pony show to impress somebody, somewhere, who has some money to spend and not much sense. It certainly wasn't anything approaching a scientific demonstration of proof that Rossi's process works.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And since the steam is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe through liquid, which would presumably turn the liquid into a fine mist after a few minutes. The above appears to to be a typo. It was probably meant to say: One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by *volume* to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by *mass*. And since the steam is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe through liquid, which would presumably turn the liquid into a fine mist after a few minutes. If x is the liquid portion by volume, then x/((x+(1-x)*0.0006)) is the portion by mass. If steam is 2% wet by volume, then x=0.02 and the portion by mass is 0.97144, or 97.14%. It then takes only 2.856% of the heat to produce the wet steam vs dry. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Joshua Cude still impresses me as the only adult in the class in junior high school -- very impressive clarity of comprehension, speedy assessment of essential factors, vigorous lucid communication, terse effortless pointed prose, alert compassion, as he tackles the tedious task of pointing out to the dubious crowd that the emperor has no clothes... Hey, Jed, you Reb, you've got General Grant running you down... I can hardly believe that anyone still pays any attention at all to BlackLight Power... The last famous SPAWAR triple track report took pages to end up with estimates about a single triple spot out of millions... We can enjoy all this if we treat it as a reality show, believers versus skeptics, playing it for laughs, especially at ourselves. If what's going on is truly infinite, then all apparently finite flows of perception-thought are always going to fall flat on their faces, including CM, SR, GR, QM, BB, SS, evolution, linear one-way causality... Get used to it... I learned a lot at MIT when the professors would leap over a gap in their presentation by waving their hands in the air with a decidedly sheepish grin... Rich, the punch bowl that floats the turd...
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
This list was formed to get away from the interminable, meaningless and unproductive debate between pathological skeptics and true believers. The list was formed especially to get away from the ego feeding pathological skeptics on sci.physics.fusion that filled the bandwidth and prevented meaningful discussion. That specifically included *you* if I recall correctly. Despite initial appearances, you haven't changed much in 15 years! In your false analogy, appended below, you are not the punchbowl. The turd floating in this punchbowl appears to be you! 8^) See the vortex-l rules: http://amasci.com/weird/wvort.html especially Rule 2, and http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html http://amasci.com/pathskep.html Quoting Bill Beaty: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vortex-L is for those who see great value in removing their usual mental filters by provisionally accepting the validity of impossible phenomena in order to test them. This excellent quote found by Gene Mallove clearly states the problem, and reveals the need for true believers in a science community otherwise ruled by conservative scoffers: It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them. - Arthur C. Clarke, 1963 So, on Vortex-L we intentionally suspend the disbelieving attitude of those who believe in the stereotypical scientific method. While this does leave us open to the great personal embarrassment of falling for hoaxes and delusional thinking, we tolerate this problem in our quest to consider ideas and phenomena which would otherwise be rejected out of hand without a fair hearing. There are diamonds in the filth, and we see that we cannot hunt for diamonds without getting dirty. Note that skepticism of the openminded sort is perfectly acceptable on Vortex-L. The ban here is aimed at scoffing and hostile disbelief, and at the sort of Skeptic who angrily disbelieves all that is not solidly proved true, while carefully rejecting all new data and observations which conflict with widely accepted theory. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Here specifically is rule 2: 2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is banned. Pathological Skepticism is banned (see the link.) The tone here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in disgust. But if your mind is open and you wish to test crazy claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away, hop on board! and the link regarding pathological skepticism, once again, is: http://amasci.com/pathskep.html On Feb 21, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Rich Murray wrote: Joshua Cude still impresses me as the only adult in the class in junior high school -- very impressive clarity of comprehension, speedy assessment of essential factors, vigorous lucid communication, terse effortless pointed prose, alert compassion, as he tackles the tedious task of pointing out to the dubious crowd that the emperor has no clothes... Hey, Jed, you Reb, you've got General Grant running you down... I can hardly believe that anyone still pays any attention at all to BlackLight Power... The last famous SPAWAR triple track report took pages to end up with estimates about a single triple spot out of millions... We can enjoy all this if we treat it as a reality show, believers versus skeptics, playing it for laughs, especially at ourselves. If what's going on is truly infinite, then all apparently finite flows of perception-thought are always going to fall flat on their faces, including CM, SR, GR, QM, BB, SS, evolution, linear one-way causality... Get used to it... I learned a lot at MIT when the professors would leap over a gap in their presentation by waving their hands in the air with a decidedly sheepish grin... Rich, the punch bowl that floats the turd... Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
As a consummate skeptic, I don't even experience an external physical reality, whether body, society, or universe... Let's say, Rich is on all levels within a virtual simulation, a Rich's life world dream... So, as always, the reality status of this very flowing moment of perception-cognition is neither known nor knowable... Worse yet, there are many profound traditions that give this exploration priority... Since science was my first dogmatism, cold fusion gives me a convenient theater of improvisation within which to play out what happens when bunches of cats somehow succeed for a while into herding themselves into marching in order in step to abstract music... It's entertaining to see that mainstream cosmology has found the immense external observable universe to be merely a magnified view of the tiniest possible region within a space with 10 dimensions and a one-way time flow of 1 dimension -- note that surely all those dimensions were not vanquished somehow by the minute vacuum fluctuation that still comprises an accelerating expansion of novel surprises, including this very mo.m..e...nt. So, I'm not just harassing cold fusion... My target is hard to miss, being Everything as every thing... Returning to lack of replication, there is no such thing as actual enduring replication if it's all magic... Rich
RE: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Joshua: A few clarifications from you would be helpful... Jed wrote: You do have to trust Levi, Celani and Dufour and some other people. To which Joshua stated: Why? They were hand-picked by Rossi. Where is your evidence that the scientists that were there to instrument the demo were 'hand-picked by Rossi? I have kept up with this topic, and I cannot remember anywhere that that was stated. I highly doubt it was Rossi... more likely Focardi. Regardless, what either of us thinks (i.e., surmises) is irrelevent; what matters here are the facts, and I think its worthwhile to know how the participants were selected. Joshua stated: And since the steam is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe through liquid, which would presumably turn the liquid into a fine mist after a few minutes... Again, where did you get this detail about the operation of the reactor? I have not seen ANY description of how the water is circulated inside the reactor, nor, and more importantly, the location of where the intense heat source is that actually vaporizes the water. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
its no big deal... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th_aBzrV37M harry - Original Message From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: michael barron mhbar...@gmail.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 1:52:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device This list was formed to get away from the interminable, meaningless and unproductive debate between pathological skeptics and true believers. The list was formed especially to get away from the ego feeding pathological skeptics on sci.physics.fusion that filled the bandwidth and prevented meaningful discussion. That specifically included *you* if I recall correctly. Despite initial appearances, you haven't changed much in 15 years! In your false analogy, appended below, you are not the punchbowl. The turd floating in this punchbowl appears to be you! 8^)
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Over the top funny! Thanks! My laughing was highly therapeutic! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ On Feb 21, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: its no big deal... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th_aBzrV37M harry - Original Message From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: michael barron mhbar...@gmail.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 1:52:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device This list was formed to get away from the interminable, meaningless and unproductive debate between pathological skeptics and true believers. The list was formed especially to get away from the ego feeding pathological skeptics on sci.physics.fusion that filled the bandwidth and prevented meaningful discussion. That specifically included *you* if I recall correctly. Despite initial appearances, you haven't changed much in 15 years! In your false analogy, appended below, you are not the punchbowl. The turd floating in this punchbowl appears to be you! 8^)
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And since the steam is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe through liquid, which would presumably turn the liquid into a fine mist after a few minutes. The above appears to to be a typo. It was probably meant to say: One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by *volume* to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by *mass*. Well maybe a question of semantics, and some rounding errors. Try this: It takes only 2% of the H2O by mass, in the form of steam, to make up 97% of the expelled water by volume. For an input flow rate of 300 cc/min = 300 mg/min, 2% of the water by mass means .02* 300 = 6 mg water per minute in the form of steam. The density of steam at 1 bar is .59 micrograms/cc, so that amounts to 10,000 cc/minute steam. The remaining liquid, 294 mg/ min = 294 cc/min, therefore makes up 2.8% of the volume.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: |One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And |since the steam is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe through liquid, which would |presumably turn the liquid into a fine mist after a few minutes. The above appears to to be a typo. It was probably meant to say: One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by *volume* to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by *mass*. | Well maybe a question of semantics, and some rounding errors. | Try this: It takes only 2% of the H2O by mass, in the form of steam, to make up 97% of the expelled water by volume. Better. It is a matter of definitions. However, I think 2% steam by mass in your original statement means 2% wet steam that is to say 2% of the mass is water, 98% is steam, by mass. It wouldn't make any sense vice versa, i.e. 2% by mass vapor, and 98% mass in liquid. Such a 2% wet by mass steam takes 98% of the vaporization energy to create vs dry steam. What I provided were the numbers for 2% wet by volume steam, that is to say 2% of the volume of the ejected fluid being liquid. It is notable that the instrument used to measure dryness actually measures the capacitance of the steam, and capacitance is a function of the proportion by volume of liquid, not by mass. This is why I produced the formula and table that convert from portions by volume to portions by mass, back in January: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41703.html That said, let's proceed on with your defined problem where 2% of the water is vaporized, i.e. the ejecta is 98% liquid by mass, 98% wet by mass. |For an input flow rate of 300 cc/min = 300 mg/min, The above should read g/min, i.e. grams per minute, not milligrams per minute. |2% of the water by mass means .02* 300 = 6 mg water per minute in the form of steam. Again, 6 grams per minute of steam vapor, not mg. |The density of steam at 1 bar is .59 micrograms/cc, so that amounts to 10,000 cc/minute steam. I used density of steam at 100 C and 760 torr: 0.6 kg/m^3 = 0.0006 gm/ cm^3 http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/DmitriyGekhman.shtml Metz, Clyde R. Schaum's Outline of Physical Chemistry. McGraw-Hill, 1988. The density of steam at 100 °C and 760.0 torr is 0.5974 kg m-3. This means the 6 gm/min represents (6 gm/min)/(0.0006 gm/cm^3) = 10,000 cc/minute, and we agree on that, so you used the rounded up number as well, plus for you two wrongs in units (mg/cc vs ug/cc, and mg vs g) made a right. The correct value for steam density is 5.974x10^-4 gm/cc, not 0.59 micrograms/cc. Maybe you mistook an abbreviation for milligrams for micrograms in some reference? The remaining liquid, 294 mg/ min = 294 cc/min, therefore makes up 2.8% of the volume. The proportion of liquid in the total volume expelled, given your definition of 2% of the H2O by mass is 294/(10,000+294) = 2.856%. The steam in this case is 2.856% wet by volume. It is also neatly true, that if the total volume expelled is 2% wet by volume, then the *vapor* by mass is 2.856%. If x is the liquid portion by volume, then x/((x+(1-x)*0.0006)) is the portion by mass. If steam is 2% wet by volume, then x=0.02 and the portion by mass is 0.97144, or 97.14%. It then takes only 2.856% of the heat to produce the wet steam vs dry. As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into x/((x+(1-x) *0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of the volume expelled is water, and 2% steam - your starting assumptions. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into x/((x+(1-x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of the volume expelled is water, and 2% steam - your starting assumptions. As a double check on this discussion, you should note that they have now run the cell with hot water only, no phase change, and they found it recovered even more heat than with the phase change. So this speculation about wet steam and greatly reduced enthapy is incorrect. Evidently Dr. Galantini was correct, and the steam was dry. Either that or these estimates of the enthalpy of wet steam are incorrect. I do not know which true, and it does not matter. A different method has now been used to confirm the original conclusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: |One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And |since the steam is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe through liquid, which would |presumably turn the liquid into a fine mist after a few minutes. The above appears to to be a typo. It was probably meant to say: One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by *volume* to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by *mass*. | Well maybe a question of semantics, and some rounding errors. | Try this: It takes only 2% of the H2O by mass, in the form of steam, to make up 97% of the expelled water by volume. Better. It is a matter of definitions. However, I think 2% steam by mass in your original statement means 2% wet steam that is to say 2% of the mass is water, 98% is steam, by mass. It wouldn't make any sense vice versa, i.e. 2% by mass vapor, and 98% mass in liquid. But that last formulation makes perfect sense, I think, and is surely what Joshua wrote. In Joshua's scenario, each gram of effluent consists of 980 milligrams of liquid water, in the form of tiny droplets taking up just under a milliliter of total volume, and just 20 milligrams of vapor, in the form of gas. None the less, the 20 milligrams of vapor, being enormously less dense, constitute nearly all the *volume* of the effluent -- thus, it's 97.5% vapor, by volume, because the vapor is taking up about 39 milliliters of space, to the single ml being consumed by the liquid. By *volume*, this stuff Joshua is describing would be 2.5% liquid water, or, one might say, 97.5% dry steam. Only 2.5% of the *mass* of the water has been vaporized in this scenario, so the heat of vaporization required will be about 40 times *smaller* than that required to fully vaporize the water. What doesn't make sense? Is it that the expansion factor for liquid-vapor Joshua used is too large? Such a 2% wet by mass steam takes 98% of the vaporization energy to create vs dry steam. What I provided were the numbers for 2% wet by volume steam, that is to say 2% of the volume of the ejected fluid being liquid. I think you and Joshua were talking about the same thing, really. Or maybe I'm just tired. I should go to bed.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: |One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And |since the steam is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe through liquid, which would |presumably turn the liquid into a fine mist after a few minutes. The above appears to to be a typo. It was probably meant to say: One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by *volume* to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by *mass*. | Well maybe a question of semantics, and some rounding errors. | Try this: It takes only 2% of the H2O by mass, in the form of steam, to make up 97% of the expelled water by volume. Better. It is a matter of definitions. However, I think 2% steam by mass in your original statement means 2% wet steam that is to say 2% of the mass is water, 98% is steam, by mass. It wouldn't make any sense vice versa, i.e. 2% by mass vapor, and 98% mass in liquid. But that last formulation makes perfect sense, I think, .. and I said I thought it was better. and is surely what Joshua wrote. In Joshua's scenario, each gram of effluent consists of 980 milligrams of liquid water, in the form of tiny droplets taking up just under a milliliter of total volume, and just 20 milligrams of vapor, in the form of gas. None the less, the 20 milligrams of vapor, being enormously less dense, constitute nearly all the volume of the effluent -- thus, it's 97.5% vapor, by volume, because the vapor is taking up about 39 milliliters of space, to the single ml being consumed by the liquid. By volume, this stuff Joshua is describing would be 2.5% liquid water, or, one might say, 97.5% dry steam. Only 2.5% of the mass of the water has been vaporized in this scenario, so the heat of vaporization required will be about 40 times smaller than that required to fully vaporize the water. What doesn't make sense? Is it that the expansion factor for liquid-vapor Joshua used is too large? No, it is a matter of definitions, as I said. Such a 2% wet by mass steam takes 98% of the vaporization energy to create vs dry steam. What I provided were the numbers for 2% wet by volume steam, that is to say 2% of the volume of the ejected fluid being liquid. I think you and Joshua were talking about the same thing, really. Yes, I merely pointed out what appeared to be a typo - of the kind I make often, exchanging terms. Or maybe I'm just tired. I should go to bed. I think Joshua and I both have a grasp on the basic principles involved, and both of us know it. I provided both forwards and backwards calculations of the values in question (but which were unfortunately cut above), so that should be good enough to demonstrate that I understand the principles I think. Below are the values discussed regarding this experiment in tabular form. Liquid LiquidGas PortionPortion Portion by Volume by Mass by Mass - --- --- 0.010 0.9439 0.0560 0.020 0.971440.02856 0.028560.98 0.02 The problem, to me, centered on the meaning of 2% steam. When this phrase is used it typically (AFAIK) means 2% wet steam, i.e 2% of the steam is water. That can be by 2% water of total mass or 2% water of total volume, but I think is usually expressed in terms of water by mass. Therefore, when I saw 2% steam by mass, it appeared Joshua was talking about 2% water by mass, and 98% vapor by mass. I doubt that anyone normally talks abut 98% steam, especially when talking about dry steam, because that quickly will be pure water, i.e. it is 98% water by mass, and probably unmistakable to the eye as dry steam. In the case of Rossi's experiment there was some doubt and discussion about how accurate the measurement could be, because the value was determined by steam capacitance, and thus might be by volume. All talk of relative humidity (RH), which the instrument actually measured in a limited range which did not include 99-100%, seemed nonsensical when applied to dry steam. A 1% error by volume could mean a 94.4% error in heat, and the instrument was rated as only 2.7% accurate in its valid range. In any case Joshua's statement did not make sense to me as written, but made total sense as corrected, given a very small error in the third place. Note in the table that 2% steam by volume is coincidentally 97.144 % steam by mass (but not 98% or 97.5%). That is to say, if 2% of the *volume* of the H2O is liquid, then 97.144% of the H2O is liquid by mass. This matches up very well with what Joshua
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Hi, Putt putt boats draw in water which flashes into steam and is then ejected mostly as fluid. Given that the water was delivered to Rossi's device in pulses, it seems possible that it also ejected water in pulses, at least to some extent, as the leading edge of each pulse flashed into steam. Since the outlet was directed down a drain this might not be noticed. IOW that's the pump may also have been the concurrent sound of a pulse of water being ejected. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Questioned by who? For what reason? Lots of people have questioned lots of things, but there is no rational reason to doubt the flow rate. How about a commercial pump that looks exactly like the one in the picture, with a max flow rate less than half of what is claimed. But if you can find a commercial pump that looks like the one in the picture that provides the flow rate they claim, *then* you could remove that doubt. Rossi could do it more easily. The flow rate was measured with a graduated cylinder and stopwatch, and by observing the reservoir weight fall. There are no better methods than this. It does not matter what anyone claims about the commercial pump, or whether some people are confused by the pump specifications. You measure the flow rate by measuring the flow rate, not by guessing about machine specifications, or by waving your hands. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Here are a couple of additional comments from Celani: a) The NaI (Tl) gamma detector had an energy range from 25 to 2000 keV; b) Celani asked, in several public mail to Rossi, that for a conclusive SCIENTIFIC demonstration of such wonderful device, the maximum temperature of the outgoing water has to be 90°C so that CONVENTIONAL flow calorimetry can be used (rather than phase-change calorimetry). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Questioned by who? For what reason? Lots of people have questioned lots of things, but there is no rational reason to doubt the flow rate. How about a commercial pump that looks exactly like the one in the picture, with a max flow rate less than half of what is claimed. But if you can find a commercial pump that looks like the one in the picture that provides the flow rate they claim, *then* you could remove that doubt. Rossi could do it more easily. The flow rate was measured with a graduated cylinder and stopwatch, and by observing the reservoir weight fall. There are no better methods than this. And a good way to measure car speed is with a speedometer. But if someone claims have driven 250 mph in a chevy Volt, I'm gonna suspect the honesty first, and the speedometer second.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: And a good way to measure car speed is with a speedometer. But if someone claims have driven 250 mph in a chevy Volt, I'm gonna suspect the honesty first, and the speedometer second. If you suspect that Levi and the others at U. Bologna are not honest, then nothing they say or do will convince you. You will conclude that they are conspiring to fool the world temporarily and destroy their own reputations, for some inexplicable reason. However, if you assume they are ordinary, sane professors who act like any other ex-President of the Chemical Society would act, then you will assume they are capable of measuring a flow rate with a graduated cylinder and stopwatch, or by watching the weight change on a digital weight scale. These tasks are easy. Any grade-school child could handle them. There is no chance that a group of professional scientists working for 6 weeks would continually make mistakes doing them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about 50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch. That is true, but the power was not 1 kW. It was 400 W. It was 1 kW at the beginning of the experiment, but a flow calorimeter or hot water heater cools down rapidly at these flow rates, so a few minutes after the power falls to 400 W, the water would be lukewarm. In Japan, most kitchen and bathroom sink water heaters are the instant, on-demand type that heat up the water as it flows through. Essentially, they are flow calorimeters. A recalcitrant old gas fired one that I use often goes off and stays off as the water is flowing. The water cools down instantly. (Come to think of it, that's kind of dangerous. We should probably get it replaced.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Peristaltic pumps of exactly this size deliver flows between a few microliters and 2000 ml/minute, depending on the ID of the tube and the number of pulses per minute. However a good report must answer in advance to all the possible (and impossible too) questions of the amateur and professional skeptics. Facts are almot always losing when they fight with memes- this was the reason I have informed the readers of my blog about this, rather disturbing, paper: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=full Peter On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Questioned by who? For what reason? Lots of people have questioned lots of things, but there is no rational reason to doubt the flow rate. How about a commercial pump that looks exactly like the one in the picture, with a max flow rate less than half of what is claimed. But if you can find a commercial pump that looks like the one in the picture that provides the flow rate they claim, *then* you could remove that doubt. Rossi could do it more easily. The flow rate was measured with a graduated cylinder and stopwatch, and by observing the reservoir weight fall. There are no better methods than this. And a good way to measure car speed is with a speedometer. But if someone claims have driven 250 mph in a chevy Volt, I'm gonna suspect the honesty first, and the speedometer second. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about 50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch. That is true, but the power was not 1 kW. It was 400 W. It was 1 kW at the beginning of the experiment, but a flow calorimeter or hot water heater cools down rapidly at these flow rates, so a few minutes after the power falls to 400 W, the water would be lukewarm. In Japan, most kitchen and bathroom sink water heaters are the instant, on-demand type that heat up the water as it flows through. Essentially, they are flow calorimeters. A recalcitrant old gas fired one that I use often goes off and stays off as the water is flowing. The water cools down instantly. (Come to think of it, that's kind of dangerous. We should probably get it replaced. Well, the water did start to cool off. There's a dip in the temperature. But we don't know what the thermal mass of the inside of that device is. It is certainly more than the pipes themselves. What we do know is that it has enough thermal mass that it doesn't heat up in a few minutes; it takes about 30 minutes. And when it is shut off (as in test 2) it cools off rather slowly. The only place it cooled off quickly was at the end of test 1, when they upped the flow rate using tap water, by probably an order of magnitude. I suspect it is designed to have large thermal mass (maybe in hot oil, or even water under pressure), so that after the power is turned off, the thermal mass keeps the output at the bp for some time. That way, they can claim it is self-sustaining, even though it's just cooling off. Clever. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about 50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch. That is true, but the power was not 1 kW. It was 400 W. It was 1 kW at the beginning of the experiment, but a flow calorimeter or hot water heater cools down rapidly at these flow rates, so a few minutes after the power falls to 400 W, the water would be lukewarm. In Japan, most kitchen and bathroom sink water heaters are the instant, on-demand type that heat up the water as it flows through. Essentially, they are flow calorimeters. A recalcitrant old gas fired one that I use often goes off and stays off as the water is flowing. The water cools down instantly. (Come to think of it, that's kind of dangerous. We should probably get it replaced.) - Jed I meant to add that these flow through water heaters are designed to have low thermal mass (so they heat up quickly), and the flow rate of a tap is much higher than in Rossi's experiment.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: And a good way to measure car speed is with a speedometer. But if someone claims have driven 250 mph in a chevy Volt, I'm gonna suspect the honesty first, and the speedometer second. If you suspect that Levi and the others at U. Bologna are not honest, then nothing they say or do will convince you. You will conclude that they are conspiring to fool the world temporarily and destroy their own reputations, for some inexplicable reason. Wrong. An open demonstration of a benchtop device, to which scientists who are on record as skeptical are permitted, that puts out 10 kW thermal power with no electrical or chemical input for a few consecutive days would convince me they have a new source of energy. If it's a nuclear effect, it should not be that hard to be convincing. But this demo has so many holes, it's truly amazing that anyone is defending it. Then again, if you don't know that steam can be heated above 100C, anything's possible.
RE: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Those are good points but the most important thing of all is being left unsaid: NO TIN CUP 100% of all the inventors in the past - who have tried to pull of scams have been seeking immediate funding. That is not the case with Rossi. He has funds in hand to build a MW unit, he says that this plan is underway, and essentially is telling skeptics: stuff it. Even bona fide investors have had a hard time making preliminary contact. I like that attitude. It says to me he is willing to sink or swim based on a demo this year. After which there will be an IPO - and all the normal channels of taking an invention to market will have been bypassed, including the VCs who want 85% of the game. It will be the largest IPO in the history of commerce. Damn the skeptics, damn the VCs, damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead. The people who are complaining the loudest are those who would like - not simply to replicate, but to go beyond. They recognize that the patent is weak (useless, really) and think they can do better. They probably can do better, and Rossi probably realizes that the one thing he has not disclosed is all he has. And it would be easy to lose that. The plan is brilliant - but only if he can deliver. Otherwise, he will look like a fool . but he is going for the gold and doing it his way - and personally I hope he pulls it off. Jones From: Jed Rothwell Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: And a good way to measure car speed is with a speedometer. But if someone claims have driven 250 mph in a chevy Volt, I'm gonna suspect the honesty first, and the speedometer second. If you suspect that Levi and the others at U. Bologna are not honest, then nothing they say or do will convince you. You will conclude that they are conspiring to fool the world temporarily and destroy their own reputations, for some inexplicable reason. However, if you assume they are ordinary, sane professors who act like any other ex-President of the Chemical Society would act, then you will assume they are capable of measuring a flow rate with a graduated cylinder and stopwatch, or by watching the weight change on a digital weight scale. These tasks are easy. Any grade-school child could handle them. There is no chance that a group of professional scientists working for 6 weeks would continually make mistakes doing them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about 50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch. That is true, but the power was not 1 kW. It was 400 W. It was 1 kW at the beginning of the experiment, but a flow calorimeter or hot water heater cools down rapidly at these flow rates, so a few minutes after the power falls to 400 W, the water would be lukewarm. It was 400 W for less than 15 minutes. After that is was 1.5 kW.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Peter Gluck wrote: However a good report must answer in advance to all the possible (and impossible too) questions of the amateur and professional skeptics. That is impossible. Skeptics can come up with an unlimited number of skeptical objections, especially after they assume that the researchers are dishonest and trying to fool the world. For example, people who think that the Moon Landings were fake will find any amount of evidence for that, and any number of reasons not to believe the truth. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Joshua Cude wrote: I suspect it is designed to have large thermal mass (maybe in hot oil, or even water under pressure), so that after the power is turned off, the thermal mass keeps the output at the bp for some time. That way, they can claim it is self-sustaining, even though it's just cooling off. Clever. The professors tested and calibrated this machine for 6 weeks. They would have discovered that it has a large hidden thermal mass. They observed semi-uncontrolled heat after death among other things. Others in the U.S. have tested it for many hours at a time. There is no chance Rossi has used some trick like this. I suspect is not a particularly useful hypothesis, in any case. Anyone can suspect anything, including hidden wires; a specially reconstructed plug in the wall and a superconducting wire that allows much more electricity than normal while fooling the power meter; oxygen added to the tap water; or a fluid replacing the tap water that happens to be tasteless and potable, but has a lower boiling point than water. All of these have been proposed. Such hypothesis are so far-fetched they should not be taken seriously. Skeptics can come up with hundreds of them, culminating in something like the hypothesis that thousands of rats gathered every night to drink the water in Mizuno's heat after death experiments. I think we should stick to reasonable, plausible hypotheses that have some supporting evidence rather than I suspect or hypothetically someone could . . . or the specifications for a pump I saw on the Internet mean the professors can't read a weight scale. Even allowing the hypothesis that Rossi is a con man, I do not think we should assume that he has an astounding ability to replace wires in walls, or the drinking water in ordinary pipes, or that by standing in the room he can make a university power meter go haywire, or make Dufour think a pipe is hot when it is lukewarm. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck wrote: However a good report must answer in advance to all the possible (and impossible too) questions of the amateur and professional skeptics. That is impossible. Skeptics can come up with an unlimited number of skeptical objections, especially after they assume that the researchers are dishonest and trying to fool the world. For example, people who think that the Moon Landings were fake will find any amount of evidence for that, and any number of reasons not to believe the truth. - Jed Moon landing skeptics are wackos, not scientists. Rossi skeptics are scientists, not wackos. If we are simply to trust people's claims, then what's a demo for? If the effect were real, making a demo that required no trust would be child's play. I don't need to trust Henry Ford to believe internal combustion engines work, or Lisa Meitner to believe fission reactors work, or Richard Garwin to believe hydrogen bombs work... you get the drift.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: That is not the case with Rossi. He has funds in hand to build a MW unit, he says that this plan is underway, and essentially is telling skeptics: stuff it. These are good points. They are not the same kind of evidence as Dufour feeling a hot pipe. They are more the kind of evidence that a police detective would look for in a fraud investigation. Such investigations are not experiments, but they are a valid way to determine what is real and what isn't. The evidence I cited -- that university professors seldom destroy their own reputations for no reason -- is also an example of police detective evidence rather than physical evidence. Beene and are making some assumptions about human nature here. Human nature is, of course, variable and sometime inexplicable, but that does not mean we can make no assumptions based upon in. I prefer physical evidence, but it would be foolish to ignore police detective evidence. If Rossi was asking for capital it would be a red flag. Rossi has many other red flags, as I have often noted, and it sure makes me uncomfortable. They recognize that the patent is weak (useless, really) and think they can do better. They probably can do better . . . That is what I have heard. Rossi mentioned a patent attorney, and someone else told they are taking a second shot at a patent. That is welcome news. Trade secrets will not cut the mustard for this product. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: If we are simply to trust people's claims, then what's a demo for? I do not trust Rossi's claims. I trust that Levi can read a weight scale, and that Dufour is telling me the truth when he says the pipe was too hot to tough. I trust that the power meter was working. If the effect were real, making a demo that required no trust would be child's play. I do not think this demo required any trust. I think that the objections you and others have raised, such as the notion that the flow rate may have been measured wrong, have no merit. I do agree that a better demonstration could have been done, but this one was not as bad as you and others have portrayed it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: I suspect it is designed to have large thermal mass (maybe in hot oil, or even water under pressure), so that after the power is turned off, the thermal mass keeps the output at the bp for some time. That way, they can claim it is self-sustaining, even though it's just cooling off. Clever. The professors tested and calibrated this machine for 6 weeks. They would have discovered that it has a large hidden thermal mass. They did. It takes 30 minutes to bring the temperature up to the level needed to deliver water at 100C. They observed semi-uncontrolled heat after death among other things. They observed the temperature stay at 100C for 15 minutes. Thermal mass explains that. Others in the U.S. have tested it for many hours at a time. Others? Who? I suspect is not a particularly useful hypothesis, in any case. Well, it is if an experiment can be easily designed to make such suspicions impossible. As would be the case here, if the claims were true. Anyone can suspect anything, including hidden wires; a specially reconstructed plug in the wall and a superconducting wire that allows much more electricity than normal while fooling the power meter; oxygen added to the tap water; or a fluid replacing the tap water that happens to be tasteless and potable, but has a lower boiling point than water. All of these have been proposed. Such hypothesis are so far-fetched they should not be taken seriously. Maybe, but thermal mass, as evidenced by the startup and cool-off times, is not at all far-fetched. And the suspicions you list could be easily excluded with a better designed demo, and in any case, made less likely by allowing observers who are not hand-picked. Skeptics can come up with hundreds of them, culminating in something like the hypothesis that thousands of rats gathered every night to drink the water in Mizuno's heat after death experiments. Right. But set the skeptic in from of his experiments, and he will not suspect rats. I think we should stick to reasonable, plausible hypotheses that have some supporting evidence rather than I suspect or hypothetically someone could . . . or the specifications for a pump I saw on the Internet mean the professors can't read a weight scale. And I think the experiment should be designed so no one could say I suspect, you know like in the examples I gave, there is no room for suspicions. Even allowing the hypothesis that Rossi is a con man, I do not think we should assume that he has an astounding ability to replace wires in walls, or the drinking water in ordinary pipes, or that by standing in the room he can make a university power meter go haywire, or make Dufour think a pipe is hot when it is lukewarm. Whatever. My suspicions do not require any of that. Just some thermal mass inside that giant tin-foil phallus.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I do not think this demo required any trust. But you said, if you trust... then there's no point.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On 02/17/2011 11:41 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I do not think this demo required any trust. But you said, if you trust... then there's no point. Calm down, Joshua. Jed meant there's no need to trust the inventor, Rossi, not there's no need to trust anybody anywhere. Jed is a smart dude and there's no call to talk to him like he's an idiot. If you really don't trust anybody then you must conclude that the moon landings *could* have been faked (unless you happen to have been along for the ride on one of them). So, Jed clearly didn't mean there's no need to trust *anybody*. Issues with steam wetness aside, if Rossi's gadget doesn't work, it seems difficult to account for the heat needed simply to bring all the water to the boiling point -- and the evidence is pretty convincing that that, at least, was done. Some notions have been floated to explain the heat of the output in the absence of a working device but none of them seems very convincing (and I'm including the assertion that the pump was insufficient on the list of not very convincing notions, because it requires that Levi et al either be idiots or co-conspirators). As to the investors, or lack thereof, I'm still confused on this point. If there really are Greek investors floating around in the background, then some of Rossi's statements don't make a lot of sense. If there aren't, then some other of Rossi's statements don't seem to make sense. If there are no investors then I would tend to conclude that Rossi, at least, believes in the device; otherwise his behavior doesn't make sense. And if Rossi believes in it, then the idea that there's chemical fuel on board is a non-starter. If there *are* investors, on the other hand, then the demo is a much tougher sell, IMO, because when there's a pile of money involved, even seemingly far-fetched explanations can no longer be discarded out of hand. The only explanation that allows one to comfortably conclude that it's all bogus and which ... er ... holds water even if there are no investors is Horace's, because it could be correct even if Rossi believes the device really works. But I haven't seen a double-check of Horace's math (and I certainly haven't done one myself) and enough slings and arrows have been cast at it to raise some doubt. Of course, as soon as the secret ingredient is revealed we'll know whether Horace was on the right track!
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: If there *are* investors, on the other hand, then the demo is a much tougher sell, IMO, because when there's a pile of money involved, even seemingly far-fetched explanations can no longer be discarded out of hand. There are plenty of investors dollars floating around. Rossi explains: *In the US we have a factory producing reactors. In Greece there is a Newco owned by large European companies working in the field of energy. There are proposals and we have a contract...* He turns away propositions from new investors because he already has enough money. A lot of it! -- Never did I see a second sun Never did my skin touch a land of glass Never did my rifle point but true But in a land empty of enemies Waiting for the tick-tick-tick of the want A uranium angel Crying “behold,” This land that knew fire is yours Taken from Corruption To begin anew
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The professors tested and calibrated this machine for 6 weeks. They would have discovered that it has a large hidden thermal mass. They did. It takes 30 minutes to bring the temperature up to the level needed to deliver water at 100C. They reportedly had difficulty turning on the excess heat in that run. It would never have risen to 100 deg C without excess heat. My point about the calibrations may be unclear. When you calibrate a system like this, turning on the electric heater only without hydrogen in the nickel, and in various other tests, the presence of a large thermal mass would be revealed. Whatever. My suspicions do not require any of that. Just some thermal mass inside that giant tin-foil phallus. That's funny! Phallus indeed. As I said, the calibration would reveal that. People experienced in flow calorimetry would see it easily. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 02/17/2011 11:41 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I do not think this demo required any trust. But you said, if you trust... then there's no point. Calm down, Joshua. Jed meant there's no need to trust the inventor, Rossi, not there's no need to trust anybody anywhere. Jed is a smart dude and there's no call to talk to him like he's an idiot. If you really don't trust anybody then you must conclude that the moon landings *could* have been faked (unless you happen to have been along for the ride on one of them). So, Jed clearly didn't mean there's no need to trust *anybody*. OK. I do get that trust is not necessarily binary, and some trust is needed to believe the moon landing, because tagging along is not feasible, esp. not now. But it is possible to tag along with the good ship Rossi, and, at least for someone present, it should be possible to demonstrate the effect without any need for trust, just like trust is not needed to believe in many other technologies. If that someone is an avowed skeptic, then you could gain the trust of skeptics not present, at least until they can try one out themselves. The problem is that the witnesses they used were hand-picked, and really aren't very believable, and fail to even disclose the apparatus (pump) used, and many of the measurements made (RH vs time, mass of reservoir vs time), and many ordinary observations (what was the expelled fluid like? where did it go? how loud was it; was it consistent with claimed gas flow rate?), etc. And if Rossi believes in it, then the idea that there's chemical fuel on board is a non-starter. I'm not sure. The H-Ni system gives off chemical heat. He may be mistaking it for nuclear.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Well, it is if an experiment can be easily designed to make such suspicions impossible. As would be the case here, if the claims were true. Seriously, It is nearly impossible to design a demonstration that will eliminate all suspicions, in all people. Some people, such as Robert Park, simply will not believe a claim, no matter how much evidence you present. Even if Park were to attend a first-rate demonstration of the Rossi device, one that addresses all of the issues raised here, he would refuse to believe it. He would make up other objections. I mean it when I say that people can make up unlimited numbers of reasons to dismiss a finding. The scientific method demands that an arbitrary limit be placed on objections. It is a matter of opinion how much proof is needed, and how many objections should be met, but you cannot leave the question undecided indefinitely. Do that, and no question will be settled, nothing will ever be ready for the textbooks, and research will not proceed to the next step. I am not saying that Rossi has met that limit. He is far from it! But you cannot keep moving the goalposts and asking for more and more proof, and is your standard is: Are the skeptics satisfied? Does anyone still have doubts? then you will keep moving the goalposts indefinitely. Many people still dispute special relativity. That's fine. They have every right to do that. But we should not expect physicists to keep repeating experiments that demonstrate the effect of gravity on time, for instance, just to satisfy these skeptics. The physicists have other things to do. Cold fusion researchers should not be forced to do boil off experiments again and again just because the latest crop of nitwits in Wikipedia are unaware of the steps taken to ensure that unboiled water did not leave the cells at Toyota and the French AEC. Just to clarify, Stephen Lawrence is correct. I meant you do not have to trust Rossi. You do have to trust Levi, Celani and Dufour and some other people. They might be conspiring together to fool us. If they can keep a secret, it would be easy for them to fool us. I have no actual proof that the demonstration even took place. The video might have been staged, and the data invented out of whole cloth. If you think that Levi, Celani and the others might do such a thing, then you have no reason to believe any of this is true. I doubt they would, because it would be out of character, and there does not seem to be a motive. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On 02/17/2011 03:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: ... I meant you do not have to trust Rossi. You do have to trust Levi, Celani and Dufour and some other people. They might be conspiring together to fool us. If they can keep a secret, it would be easy for them to fool us. I have no actual proof that the demonstration even took place. The video might have been staged, and the data invented out of whole cloth. If you think that Levi, Celani and the others might do such a thing, then you have no reason to believe any of this is true. I doubt they would, because it would be out of character, and there does not seem to be a motive. This reminded me of something which has been bothering me. According to Celani, observers were not allowed into the room until the experiment began to work: The device did not work at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room with the device. ... About 1 to 2 minutes after this /[gamma ray burst]/ event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. Why was that? It seems very strange. In particular, it leaves us speculating, entirely in the dark, as to exactly what was going on in the room at the moment when the burst of gamma radiation was detected. That burst of gamma rays has been taken as being highly significant, as it indicated *something* besides chemistry was happening. However, since nobody who was present where the burst was detected also saw what was going on in the demo room at that moment, there is no way to rule out the possibility that the gamma burst was also staged, with Rossi's entrance announcing the start of the show carefully timed to come just after the burst, to make it appear to have been an emission produced by the device when it started. Without more information as to what was going on just before the show, I don't think that particular speculation is all that far-fetched. (Or is it terribly difficult to produce a radiation burst, possibly with a small source in a lead box? I'm assuming it would have been easy for Rossi to do that. Perhaps that's not true.)
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
I wrote: The scientific method demands that an arbitrary limit be placed on objections. It is a matter of opinion how much proof is needed, and how many objections should be met, but you cannot leave the question undecided indefinitely. . . . In this case, I think we need to start drawing some limits to some objections. Skeptical arguments must meet the same level of rigor as any other. I think concerns about the flow rate should be dismissed. I don't care about pump specifications someone found on the Internet. The methods Levi et al. used to measure flow are rock solid and it is silly to dispute them. With all due respect, the assertion made by Horace Heffner that 20 L container of water left a hot room for 1 hour will heat from 15 deg C to 27 deg C is wrong, and should be dismissed. Before people write things like that, I wish they would test the idea. Many assertions about physics are difficult to test, but this one is easy. Fill a large bucket with ~10 L of cold tap water (easy to get this time of year), measure the temperature, leave it in warm room for an hour, and measure it again. Please don't tell us it will rise 10 deg C per hour until you confirm that. In my experience it will do nothing of the sort. To do a more careful test, look at the photo to see what kind of plastic container they used. Find a similar one if possible, one that is closed on all sides like a jerrican or a gasoline container. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Why was that? It seems very strange. (Image of Rossi, a la Bear Gryllis, with a firesteel trying to start his fire.) firesteel.com T
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
If we had a spectrum, we would know what it was - or more to the point, what it wasn't. I really, REALLY want a spectrum. Just one. On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 02/17/2011 03:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: ... I meant you do not have to trust Rossi. You do have to trust Levi, Celani and Dufour and some other people. They might be conspiring together to fool us. If they can keep a secret, it would be easy for them to fool us. I have no actual proof that the demonstration even took place. The video might have been staged, and the data invented out of whole cloth. If you think that Levi, Celani and the others might do such a thing, then you have no reason to believe any of this is true. I doubt they would, because it would be out of character, and there does not seem to be a motive. This reminded me of something which has been bothering me. According to Celani, observers were not allowed into the room until the experiment began to work: The device did not work at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room with the device. ... About 1 to 2 minutes after this *[gamma ray burst]* event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. Why was that? It seems very strange. In particular, it leaves us speculating, entirely in the dark, as to exactly what was going on in the room at the moment when the burst of gamma radiation was detected. That burst of gamma rays has been taken as being highly significant, as it indicated *something* besides chemistry was happening. However, since nobody who was present where the burst was detected also saw what was going on in the demo room at that moment, there is no way to rule out the possibility that the gamma burst was also staged, with Rossi's entrance announcing the start of the show carefully timed to come just after the burst, to make it appear to have been an emission produced by the device when it started. Without more information as to what was going on just before the show, I don't think that particular speculation is all that far-fetched. (Or is it terribly difficult to produce a radiation burst, possibly with a small source in a lead box? I'm assuming it would have been easy for Rossi to do that. Perhaps that's not true.)
RE: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
From: albedo5 If we had a spectrum, we would know what it was - or more to the point, what it wasn't. I really, REALLY want a spectrum. Just one. Hmm . could it be simply a matter of deduction ? . connect the dots with Celani being specifically the only party being disallowed, his earlier Cincinnati group replication paper (which Rossi must have read), the range of common signatures that are possible for Celani to have identified with a portable NaI meter, even if allowed, and the fact that to produce power for $.01/kWhr, a natural emitter instead of an expensive isotope would need to be used. . how many possibilities are there to chose from ?
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Also, the fact that both meters were pegged. That sounds more like an event, and less like the momentary exposure of a shielded catalyst. On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: albedo5 If we had a spectrum, we would know what it was - or more to the point, what it wasn't. I really, REALLY want a spectrum. Just one. Hmm … could it be simply a matter of deduction ? … connect the dots with Celani being specifically the only party being disallowed, his earlier Cincinnati group replication paper (which Rossi must have read), the range of common signatures that are possible for Celani to have identified with a portable NaI meter, even if allowed, and the fact that to produce power for $.01/kWhr, a natural emitter instead of an expensive isotope would need to be used… … how many possibilities are there to chose from ? -- Never did I see a second sun Never did my skin touch a land of glass Never did my rifle point but true But in a land empty of enemies Waiting for the tick-tick-tick of the want A uranium angel Crying “behold,” This land that knew fire is yours Taken from Corruption To begin anew
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
If you want a natural emitter that would do a burst that would saturate a small NaI detector, that's easy. You would have to have access to something like a Cs137 or Co60/Co57 source, or even something as common as Tc99m, but any medical imaging facility or drilling outfit would have something. The trouble is, each of those have very distinctive spectra that any detector with identification capability would recognise immediately. Most of the strong sources (that wouldn't get you in trouble with the big guys at DHS) have medical or industrial uses. He could have just bought a LOT of kitty litter or bananas (yes, a BIG LOT), and thrown a lead blanket over the pile and removed it just before showing in the room! Handheld detectors are not designed to see really large sources at close range. I bet if I ask the right people I can find out what it would take, based on easily-acquired sources, to saturate a handheld NaI detector. But if, instead of a burst, you get a collected spectrum, I can *tell* you what it is, with very high confidence. That is information, not data. We have lots of data, but very little information. It is very frustrating that someone with an ID-capable detector didn't collect something. Debbie On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: albedo5 If we had a spectrum, we would know what it was - or more to the point, what it wasn't. I really, REALLY want a spectrum. Just one. Hmm … could it be simply a matter of deduction ? … connect the dots with Celani being specifically the only party being disallowed, his earlier Cincinnati group replication paper (which Rossi must have read), the range of common signatures that are possible for Celani to have identified with a portable NaI meter, even if allowed, and the fact that to produce power for $.01/kWhr, a natural emitter instead of an expensive isotope would need to be used… … how many possibilities are there to chose from ?
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Gotta run. I'll catch up in 3 or 4 days. Don't take my absence as a concession. JC On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Well, it is if an experiment can be easily designed to make such suspicions impossible. As would be the case here, if the claims were true. Seriously, It is nearly impossible to design a demonstration that will eliminate all suspicions, in all people. Some people, such as Robert Park, simply will not believe a claim, no matter how much evidence you present. Even if Park were to attend a first-rate demonstration of the Rossi device, one that addresses all of the issues raised here, he would refuse to believe it. He would make up other objections. I mean it when I say that people can make up unlimited numbers of reasons to dismiss a finding. The scientific method demands that an arbitrary limit be placed on objections. It is a matter of opinion how much proof is needed, and how many objections should be met, but you cannot leave the question undecided indefinitely. Do that, and no question will be settled, nothing will ever be ready for the textbooks, and research will not proceed to the next step. I am not saying that Rossi has met that limit. He is far from it! But you cannot keep moving the goalposts and asking for more and more proof, and is your standard is: Are the skeptics satisfied? Does anyone still have doubts? then you will keep moving the goalposts indefinitely. Many people still dispute special relativity. That's fine. They have every right to do that. But we should not expect physicists to keep repeating experiments that demonstrate the effect of gravity on time, for instance, just to satisfy these skeptics. The physicists have other things to do. Cold fusion researchers should not be forced to do boil off experiments again and again just because the latest crop of nitwits in Wikipedia are unaware of the steps taken to ensure that unboiled water did not leave the cells at Toyota and the French AEC. Just to clarify, Stephen Lawrence is correct. I meant you do not have to trust Rossi. You do have to trust Levi, Celani and Dufour and some other people. They might be conspiring together to fool us. If they can keep a secret, it would be easy for them to fool us. I have no actual proof that the demonstration even took place. The video might have been staged, and the data invented out of whole cloth. If you think that Levi, Celani and the others might do such a thing, then you have no reason to believe any of this is true. I doubt they would, because it would be out of character, and there does not seem to be a motive. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Gotta run. I'll catch up in 3 or 4 days. Don't take my absence as a concession. Concession to what? We are truthseekers, not competitors. If you are an eternal septic, you will never be convinced. Albedo5 (who ran the septic forum on CompuServe) once said If a UFO landed on my front lawn and an alien came in and bit me on the arse, I'm not sure I would believe it. sigh T
RE: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Debbie, It is very frustrating that someone with an ID-capable detector didn't collect something. That is not a given. There could easily have been data collected but not disclosed. Celani may have been covering his tracks with what seems to be a persistent effort to explain to journalists on several occasions how he was frustrated to make this measurement - when in fact it could have been done, prior to - or following the main activity. All of Celani's recent papers have been on Pd-D systems. It will be interesting in the coming weeks to see if he should come out with something different. in response to what he may, or may not have learned. That goes for others as well. . oh, it was just a lucky guess g Jones
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: According to Celani, observers were not allowed into the room until the experiment began to work: The device did not work at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room with the device. I don't think he said they were not allowed. He didn't happen to be there. He and the others had been waiting for a long time, and they were grousing (he told me). I think he said that out of the 50 people only 10 or so could look at the thing up close at one time. I don't know why. Small room? To prevent crowding? Maybe you can tell from the video . . . Levi and the others from U. Bologna were there from start to finish of this test, and the other tests and calibrations. Notice in the update he sent to me today, he refers to this as a wonderful device. I think he is pretty much convinced it is real, despite his complaints about the test and the fact that Rossi prevented him from taking a spectrum. Melich and I are also pretty much convinced. Not 100%. Celani says that people in Italy have been aware of Rossi's claims for about two years, and several groups are working to replicate. Some openly, and some incognito. I doubt they are getting any cooperation from Rossi. My impression is that after the demo, some of them went into high gear. If one of them figures out what the 2 magic elements are, Rossi's intellectual property will be in jeopardy. And speaking of Jeopardy How you like them apples, carbon-based life-forms? As Ken Jennings put it, I for one welcome our new computer overlords. See: http://live.washingtonpost.com/jeopardy-ken-jennings.html (great interview) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/17/AR2011021701591.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Jed said, Notice in the update he [ Celani ] sent to me today, he refers to this as a wonderful device. I think he is pretty much convinced it is real, despite his complaints about the test and the fact that Rossi prevented him from taking a [ gamma ] spectrum. Melich and I are also pretty much convinced. Not 100%. Celani says that people in Italy have been aware of Rossi's claims for about two years, and several groups are working to replicate. Some openly, and some incognito. I doubt they are getting any cooperation from Rossi. My impression is that after the demo, some of them went into high gear. If one of them figures out what the 2 magic elements are, Rossi's intellectual property will be in jeopardy. I'm more on the skeptical side of these assessments, and am glad to appreciate the candid sharings. Happily, Rich Murray
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Feb 16, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is a revised version of the message I sent the other day. Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly above background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detect something. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, from my notes, with corrections and additions by Celani. Celani attended the demonstration on Jan. 14. The device did not work at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room with the device. He estimates that he was around 6 m from the device. He had two battery-powered detectors: 1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 s acquisition time. 2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, Perspective Scientific), which was set to 10 s acquisition time. Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in count mode rather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the number of counts per second. Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that elevation. As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to be switched off to delete overrange, which was 7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again. About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. Celani commented that the only conventional source of gamma rays far from a nuclear reactor would be a rare event: a cosmic ray impact on the atmosphere producing proton storm shower of particles. He and I agreed it is extremely unlikely this happened coincidentally the same moment the reactor started . . . Although, come to think of it, perhaps the causality is reversed, and the cosmic ray triggered the Rossi device. Another scientist said perhaps both detectors malfunctioned because of an electromagnetic source in the building or some other prosaic source. Celani considers this unrealistic because he also had in operation battery-operated radio frequency detectors: an ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) and RF (COM environmental microwave monitor), both made by Perspective Scientific. No radio frequency anomalies were detected. I remarked that it is also unrealistic because the two gamma detectors are battery powered and they work on different principles. The scientist pointed to neutron detectors in an early cold fusion experiment that malfunctioned at a certain time of day every day because some equipment in the laboratory building was turned on every day. That sort of thing can happen with neutron detectors, which are finicky, but this Geiger counter is used for safety monitoring. Such devices have to be rugged and reliable or they will not keep you safe, so I doubt it is easy to fool one of them. Celani expresses some reservations about the reality of the Rossi device. Given his detector results I think it would be more appropriate for him to question the safety of it. When Celani went in to see the experiment in action, he brought out the sodium iodide detector and prepared to change it to spectrum mode, which would give him more information about the ongoing reaction. Rossi objected vociferously, saying the spectrum would give Celani (or anyone else who see it), all they need to know to replicate the machine and steal Ross's intellectual property. Celani later groused that there is no point to inviting scientists to a demo if you have no intentions of letter them use their own instruments. (Note, however, that Levi et al. did use their own instruments.) Jacques Dufour also attended the demonstration. He does not speak much Italian, so he could not follow the discussion. He made some observations, including one that I consider important, namely that the outlet pipe was far too hot to touch. That means the temperature of it was over 70°C. That, in turn, proves there was considerable excess heat. It proves no such thing. Set up hot plate and adjust input to 600 W. Watt meters, combined with integrated kWh metering, can be obtained relatively cheaply. Place a covered pan on the burner until water boils. The pan lid will be too hot to touch. The steam can drive a whistle to make a loud noise. Proves nothing. McKubre and others have said the outlet temperature sensor was too close to the body of the device. Others have questioned whether the steam was really dry or not. If the question is whether the machine really produced heat or not, these factors can be ignored. All you need to know is the temperature of the tap water going in (15°C), the flow rate and the power input (400 W). At that power level the outlet pipe would be ~30°C. Celani
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Set up hot plate and adjust input to 600 W. Watt meters, combined with integrated kWh metering, can be obtained relatively cheaply. Place a covered pan on the burner until water boils. The pan lid will be too hot to touch. The steam can drive a whistle to make a loud noise. Proves nothing. It proves the water is at boiling and not lukewarm. The input water came from a container exposed to a very warm room temperature for at least 45 minutes before the active test, so was actually maybe 27 °C. That is incorrect. 20 L of water at 15 deg C in a plastic container does not heat up that quickly. In 1 hour it does not heat up measurably at all. Try it and see. I have done this often when cleaning the pond, reserving 5 L buckets of water with fish in them, in hot weather outside. (Also I doubt the room was that hot in January, in Northern Italy.) Also, the actual flow rate has been questioned. Questioned by who? For what reason? Lots of people have questioned lots of things, but there is no rational reason to doubt the flow rate. Now we hear the input power was unstable, fluctuating between 400 and 800 W, so was actually probably 600 W. Actually that is not what the power meter showed in Fig. 5 of the Levi report. That was Celani's mistaken impression. Further, the water in the device was in effect pre-heated for 45 minutes by 1000 - 1500 W. The preheated water left the device a few seconds after it entered. The only thing that stays in the device is metal, which has specific heat ~10 times lower than water, so it cannot retain much heat. Your analysis is wrong. The doubts you have raised about the calorimetry are invalid. It was not the best calorimetry possible, but it was good enough, and there is not the slightest chance the outlet pipe could have been too hot to touch without excess energy (or without some sort of trick with hidden wires). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Now we hear the input power was unstable, fluctuating between 400 and 800 W, so was actually probably 600 W. Actually that is not what the power meter showed in Fig. 5 of the Levi report. That was Celani's mistaken impression. Right, but the Levi report shows it was at 400 W for less than 15 min. Before that it was 1.25 kW. Then when the water temp started dropping, it seems, someone quickly cranked the power up to 1.5 kW. Levi himself says the average power was about 1 kW, but from the chart, that sounds low. Your analysis is wrong. The doubts you have raised about the calorimetry are invalid. It was not the best calorimetry possible, but it was good enough, and there is not the slightest chance the outlet pipe could have been too hot to touch without excess energy (or without some sort of trick with hidden wires). With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about 50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch. So, your analysis is wrong. But even if the temp was 100C, indicating some excess heat (beyond the electrical input), it was not so large that it couldn't be provided chemically without tricks or wires. (Much higher power could be provided simply by sabotaging the scale that weighs the hydrogen; considering people were not paying attention to tape stuck to the bottle, that sounds pretty easy.)
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Also, the actual flow rate has been questioned. Questioned by who? For what reason? Lots of people have questioned lots of things, but there is no rational reason to doubt the flow rate. How about a commercial pump that looks exactly like the one in the picture, with a max flow rate less than half of what is claimed. But if you can find a commercial pump that looks like the one in the picture that provides the flow rate they claim, *then* you could remove that doubt. Rossi could do it more easily.
