subject:"\[Vo\]\:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem"

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
 wrote:

Point is that it looks like it might be possible to hide additional
 electrical power supply within what the testers looked at, and we don't
 have enough information from the testers to check on all of these issues,
 however it is possible that they performed sufficient checks.


Alan (or someone) made the point that everything, laptop and all, were
plugged into the same power supply.  Would hidden DC or AC above or below
the range of the meter hurt the laptop?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

**
 Since the experimenters walked up to the experiment *after* it had been
 turned on, we don't know for sure whether the existing cabling was used to
 impart the RF, or a separate kickstart cable.


There were three runs.  The first run (November 2012) was abortive.  The
second run (December 2012) was already started when they began their
measurements.  It seems they were present during the third run (March 2013)
when the E-Cat was started (p. 15).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

I wrote:

Lubos Motl does not appear to be drawing a distinction between TeX and
 LaTeX; he is drawing a distinction between TeX/LaTeX, on one hand, and a
 simple PDF typed up in a normal word processor, on the other.  Presumably
 the former would be the expected form of submission to a mainstream physics
 journal.  This is one of the details that makes me think there is no
 intention to submit for publication.


Another reason to think they do not intend to submit for publication in a
reputable scientific journal -- they cite Wikipedia (ref. 8, at the end).
(This tip courtesy of HolyFreakinGhost in the comments to [1]). I am a big
fan of Wikipedia; far more so than Jed.  But one would hesitate to cite
Wikipedia as an authority in an article being prepared for submission to a
mainstream science journal.  The truth is that this paper has been prepared
in the manner of cold fusion papers -- a best effort, and with the promise
of thought-provoking substantive claims, but without the level of attention
to detail (formatting, punctuation, etc.) expected of a submission to a
normal journal.  We should not be surprised when people balk at these
things.

Another point worth mentioning -- this paper has followed the approach of
the August 7, 2012, paper cited elsewhere very closely [2].  In that paper
there was the Ragone diagram, the infrared camera, the radiation
measurements by David Bianchini, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, etc.  One
gets the distinct impression that the May 2013 paper used the August 2012
paper as a template.  This is not a problem in and of itself, but it makes
plausible suspicions to the effect that a less than objective observer
(Levi) led a possibly flawed effort modeled closely on an earlier one and
that the Swedish members of the team might have allowed their names to be
added to the paper without doing sufficient due diligence.

The point I'm making has less to do with the substance of the paper than
the execution -- what is the paper trying to achieve, and who is the
audience it is trying to convince?  If the audience are mainstream
scientists, I doubt it will have the intended effect.

Eric

[1]
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2013/05/22/e_cat_test_claims_success_yet_again/
[2]
http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-23 Thread Alan Fletcher

 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:00:43 PM
 Alan (or someone) made the point that everything, laptop and all,
 were plugged into the same power supply. Would hidden DC or AC above
 or below the range of the meter hurt the laptop?

That was me -- and only a couple of things were plugged into the same socket -- 
the meter and a camera. The laptops were further over on a separate plug.

And of course, since the whole building was wired for the power-input fake, 
just that ONE socket for the controller would have been rigged, set up before 
the test team arrived. (Certainly for the December test -- they said it was 
already running.)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-23 Thread Alan Fletcher

 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:16:55 AM
 I wrote:

 Lubos Motl does not appear to be drawing a distinction between TeX
 and LaTeX; he is drawing a distinction between TeX/LaTeX, on one
 hand, and a simple PDF typed up in a normal word processor, on the
 other. Presumably the former would be the expected form of
 submission to a mainstream physics journal. This is one of the
 details that makes me think there is no intention to submit for
 publication.

http://www.investorvillage.com/mbthread.asp?mb=476tid=12816817showall=1

Posted 5/23/2013  4:00:15 AM by Gustav  
It is not written in Latin so I am afraid isn't legit


 Another reason to think they do not intend to submit for publication
 in a reputable scientific journal -- they cite Wikipedia (ref. 8, at
 the end). 

Lordy, lordy -- it's firgin diagram -- a compilation of generally available 
information, and not really central to the paper.
 
 Another point worth mentioning -- this paper has followed the
 approach of the August 7, 2012, paper cited elsewhere very closely
 [2]. In that paper there was the Ragone diagram, the infrared
 camera, the radiation measurements by David Bianchini, the
 Stefan-Boltzmann equation, etc. One gets the distinct impression
 that the May 2013 paper used the August 2012 paper as a template.
 This is not a problem in and of itself, but it makes plausible
 suspicions to the effect that a less than objective observer (Levi)
 led a possibly flawed effort modeled closely on an earlier one and
 that the Swedish members of the team might have allowed their names
 to be added to the paper without doing sufficient due diligence.

We don't know who suggested the radiometric calorimetry method and the use of 
the Ragone plot. Chicken? Egg?
And even if Levi et al DID follow he previous methodology, is that bad?

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-23 Thread Duncan Cumming

 Original Message 
Subject:Fwd: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2013 10:20:27 -0700
From:   Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info
To: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com

I am acting as devils advocate here for a minute.

Had the demo been intentionally faked, there are a lot of much easier 
ways to do it than re-wiring the building! Power measurement was done 
using a wide band 3 phase power meter, a notoriously difficult 
instrument to use. A slight slackening of one of the current sensing 
clamps, a particle of grit (or Scotch tape) on the clamp face, or 
mis-threading of the cables through the clamps would give lower than 
actual power readings. A controller could easily be designed to 
bamboozle such a power meter, by exceeding either the shape factor or 
the bandwidth spec of the power meter. No measurements were made of the 
current waveform, which measurements would have immediately exposed such 
chicanery.

In short, the power measurement could have been fiddled very easily. Now 
I am not saying that it was, merely that it would have been easy to do 
so. The way to avoid such problems in the future would be simply to use 
DC to power the heaters. Or have the reactor tube tested at somebody 
else's facility, with a manufacturer's rep present to ensure that nobody 
saws the tube in half. Or to use an ordinary tube furnace with cooling 
coils for a self sustaining test.

In other words, if the manufacturer really wanted to test the reactor 
properly, they could - easily.

Duncan

 Original Message 
Subject:Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Resent-Date:Thu, 23 May 2013 09:01:42 -0700
Resent-From:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2013 08:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
Reply-To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

From: Eric Walkereric.wal...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:00:43 PM
Alan (or someone) made the point that everything, laptop and all,
were plugged into the same power supply. Would hidden DC or AC above
or below the range of the meter hurt the laptop?

That was me -- and only a couple of things were plugged into the same socket -- 
the meter and a camera. The laptops were further over on a separate plug.

And of course, since the whole building was wired for the power-input fake, 
just that ONE socket for the controller would have been rigged, set up before 
the test team arrived. (Certainly for the December test -- they said it was 
already running.)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-23 Thread Robert Lynn

Have a bit more of a think about it Jed, IR laser beams wouldn't need to be
any more intense than the heat being radiated by the E-cat.  In fact by
shining in from multiple directions they could be less intense than the
emitted heat from the E-cat (like concentrating relatively diffuse sunlight
to make something hotter at the focus point).  So how would that burn or
blind people?  Are you burnt or blinded by looking at something glowing
red-hot?

As for the other; are you seriously disputing that 2kW of AC electrical
power could be sent through those wires to the Ecat?  Take test 1: If 400V
rms AC was connected then that is only 5A rms which a 1mm diameter copper
wire can easily handle.

Now set up your 'visible' signal to be 50hZ 400V 2.5A turned on about 1/3
of time.  Meter detects this with ease.
Add a 50khz AC 400V rms 4A rms AC supply to that and you deliver another
1600W  that is invisible to the low frequency sensitive meter.
Knowing more about the meter would allow more sophisticated choices to beat
it.  DC might also be undetectable depending upon the instruments used.

Neither of these scenarios is likely, but they don't appear to be ruled out
by what is published.  The November melt-down demo is also very interesting.



On 22 May 2013 23:15, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wrote:


 You are joking! I have seen lasers strike objects, such as the items in a
 cash register checkout line. You can't miss that. It is obvious. We have
 all seen it.


 Oops. You said infrared lasers. My mistake.

 My other points hold. People would be burned and blinded.

 It just isn't possible.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-23 Thread Jed Rothwell

Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info wrote:


 Power measurement was done using a wide band 3 phase power meter, a
 notoriously difficult instrument to use. A slight slackening of one of the
 current sensing clamps . . .


This would be detected during the calibration with a resistor, and again
during the calibration with a blank cell. (In an interview Essen said they
calibrated with a resistor.)



 . . .  a particle of grit (or Scotch tape) on the clamp face, or
 mis-threading of the cables through the clamps would give lower than actual
 power readings.


This would be caught by the resister test, I believe.



 A controller could easily be designed to bamboozle such a power meter . . .


Rossi could only do this if he knew in advance which meter they were
bringing.



 In short, the power measurement could have been fiddled very easily.


I doubt it. If it were that easy for a power meter to fail, electrical and
electronic equipment all over Atlanta would be burning up every day. My
point is that fiddling with equipment is functionally the same as making
a mistake, only people make mistakes far more often they deliberately make
fake results. People make mistakes every day all day long and yet our
electrical equipment survives.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 Another reason to think they do not intend to submit for publication
  in a reputable scientific journal -- they cite Wikipedia (ref. 8, at
  the end).

 Lordy, lordy -- it's firgin diagram -- a compilation of generally
 available information, and not really central to the paper.


It would have been easy to miss my point, since I expressed it a little
intemperately.  My point was about communication and not the substance of
the paper.  As far as I know, Levi and the others measured exactly what
they said they measured, and Rossi demonstrated a device with COP 2.6+.

I was talking about effective communication.  Who are the authors trying to
persuade?  Their intended audience will shape the approach they will want
to take. Four possibilities come to mind:

   1. The general public.
   2. Cold fusion people.
   3. Open-minded scientists without much exposure to cold fusion.
   4. Close-minded scientists (Lubos Motl, etc.).

If you're going for (1), you probably also want to aim for (3).  If you're
going for (3), you should try to meet those folks half-way.  That means
dotting your i's and crossing your t's.  I would not be surprised if there
is a body of sociological literature on why the process for preparing a
paper for submission is so complex and fraught with possible errors.  For
example, there is the typesetting that I gather the authors are intended to
do themselves, at least in part.  And any professional scientist is
expected to have (at some point in the submission process) an impeccable
command of grammar and punctuation and so on.  I think these things provide
a signal to others about whether the authors have been thorough.  Did they
miss something important, e.g., did they forget to look at the power
supply?  They missed some simple things, like fixing up the funky formula,
and they didn't bother to ask for help, so perhaps they missed the power
supply.  This kind of thing is a distraction.  Distractions are bad.

People hold different productions to different standards.  You ignore for
the most part whether your younger niece is hitting a few wrong notes in a
piano performance during a holiday and enjoy the show.  You hold a concert
pianist to a different standard, and those kinds of mistakes look very bad.
 People in category (3) are expecting something along the lines of the
latter and will be distracted by something aiming for the standards of the
former.  Effective communication involves minimizing distraction.  People
in (3), above, are no doubt looking for journal articles.  If we want to
persuade them that there might be something to cold fusion, we should try
to meet them half-way.  Even if journals have a policy of avoiding cold
fusion articles, people should still aim for the same level of quality.

By the way, I suspect that some (certainly not many) of the close minded
folks are actually secretly open-minded people and are just playing devils
advocate to get some good counterarguments.

We don't know who suggested the radiometric calorimetry method and the use
 of the Ragone plot. Chicken? Egg?
 And even if Levi et al DID follow he previous methodology, is that bad?


No, it's not that bad.  It's just something that can be expected to trigger
an alarm bell in a casual observer (need not be a debunker), since no
mention is made of the earlier paper as far as I can tell.  It gives the
impression of a naive adoption of the earlier methods.  Anything that
looks like naivety can be expected to impair effective communication.  I
get that we here don't have those kinds of filters and are looking at other
details, but we should not expect open minded scientists to discard them
all at once.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

2013-05-23 Thread James Bowery

I found the major error:

The peak wavelength is in the infrared -- as it is with the sun -- and I
intuitively thought that the fact that much of the surface was bright red
thru yellow meant my picking dull red (700nm) was conservative.  This
then fed via Wien's law proportionately into the fourth power of Stefan
Boltzmann's law to produce the 2MW.

This arose because I simply neglected to go to the next page after page 2
-- where Figure 3 shows the temperature as 793C or 1066K.

Recalculating from the substitution for Th:

q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)
q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(1291304958736-Tc^4)  ; subst(1066, Th)
q=3084.152246988637*pi ;  subst(289, Tc)
q=9689W


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:58 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 I can't resist:

 What power level is required to get that device to barely enter the
 visible wavelengths (700nm), again, assuming no losses other than black
 body?

 again using http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation_t.php at
 700nm:

 blackbody temperature (T) = 4139.6692857143   kelvin

 q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)
 q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(2.9367203218388994*10^14-Tc^4)  ;
 subst(4139.6692857143, Th)
 q=705199.0585641474*pi
 q=2.2154481E6W

 Yeah, Rossi had a really high frequency power supply pumping even 1/10th
 of that into the E-Cat HT.


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:40 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 One final erratum (hopefully):  In the November run when the device
 overheated to visible wavelengths, the input power was 1kW (p2), not 360W.
  Therefore:

 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)
 1000=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)  ; subst(1000, 360)

 Th=(59549289748750/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4) ; solve(Th)
 Th=611.17587 Kelvin
 Th=338.026 Celsius

 using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php

 peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 4.741300568689E-6 meter

 Still deep into the infrared.




 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Erratum: I also left out the substitution step for room temperature:

 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ;  subst(289)


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

 Erratum:  Strike the So, what...


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

 q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
 q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A)
 q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(5.6703e-8,
 s)
 q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055, r)
  q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
 q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
 Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
  Th=483.6006 Kelvin
 Th=210.451 Celsius

 using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php

 peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter

 or 6 micrometers

 That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no
 convective losses).

 That is way into the infrared.  The excursions into the visible
 wavelength occurred with 360W.



 So, what


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell 
 jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one
 of the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:

 That the power input could not conceivably have produced the
 radiation wavelengths observed.


 You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more
 detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be
 helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.

 You might also address the fact that the first device melted.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-23 Thread Jed Rothwell

Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:


 As for the other; are you seriously disputing that 2kW of AC electrical
 power could be sent through those wires to the Ecat?


2 kW is not a problem, although modern US safety standards limit power to
1.5 kW. What they cannot do is send enough power to cause 3 mm steel and
ceramic to melt. I do not know how many kilowatts that is but I'm sure it's
more than two.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-23 Thread Michele Comitini

Rossi writes on his blog about Arxiv, peer reviewing, why that report is
not going to be published on a magazine [not a journal], but something
derived from it could/will.



May 22nd, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Dear Paolo,
I read the article on Repubblica, is sincere and honest, but contains some
imprecision:

1- the peer reviewing has been done. Read more carefully the report . Arxiv
has anyway a peer reviewing ( a publication must be examined by at least
one of the competent of the art that is well known by the Arxiv commettee:
try to publish a bad article on Arxiv and you will understand that I am
right); secondly, to be published in a cartaceous peer reviewed magazine
takes many months, so the Examiners decided to anticipate the publication
on Arxiv, pending a publication on another peer reviewed magazine. By the
way, the report has been peer reviewed by the list of Professors you find
in the acknowledgements, not to mention the fact that when a paper is
signed by many Professors of international Universities, there is also an
automatic peer reviewing made among the same Authors of the same report. It
is more difficult that 7 Authors make mistakes than 1 Author , isn’t it?
Also: the Report is 30 pages, and is impossible to publish 30 pages in a
normal magazine, therefore by necessity the report will have to be reduced
to be published in a normal magazine: for this reason Arxiv has been chosen
by the examiners for the first publication.

2- the description of the process has been described uncorrectly, but I
understand that for a non expert is difficult to write in few lines an
abstract of 30 pages of report.
In conclusion, the journalist of Repubblica has made honestly and sincerely
the job.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


2013/5/23 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com

  From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
  Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:16:55 AM
  I wrote:

  Lubos Motl does not appear to be drawing a distinction between TeX
  and LaTeX; he is drawing a distinction between TeX/LaTeX, on one
  hand, and a simple PDF typed up in a normal word processor, on the
  other. Presumably the former would be the expected form of
  submission to a mainstream physics journal. This is one of the
  details that makes me think there is no intention to submit for
  publication.

 http://www.investorvillage.com/mbthread.asp?mb=476tid=12816817showall=1

 Posted 5/23/2013  4:00:15 AM by Gustav
 It is not written in Latin so I am afraid isn't legit


  Another reason to think they do not intend to submit for publication
  in a reputable scientific journal -- they cite Wikipedia (ref. 8, at
  the end).

 Lordy, lordy -- it's firgin diagram -- a compilation of generally
 available information, and not really central to the paper.

  Another point worth mentioning -- this paper has followed the
  approach of the August 7, 2012, paper cited elsewhere very closely
  [2]. In that paper there was the Ragone diagram, the infrared
  camera, the radiation measurements by David Bianchini, the
  Stefan-Boltzmann equation, etc. One gets the distinct impression
  that the May 2013 paper used the August 2012 paper as a template.
  This is not a problem in and of itself, but it makes plausible
  suspicions to the effect that a less than objective observer (Levi)
  led a possibly flawed effort modeled closely on an earlier one and
  that the Swedish members of the team might have allowed their names
  to be added to the paper without doing sufficient due diligence.

 We don't know who suggested the radiometric calorimetry method and the use
 of the Ragone plot. Chicken? Egg?
 And even if Levi et al DID follow he previous methodology, is that bad?

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-22 Thread Daniel Rocha

Actually, this is something I noticed in arxiv, pre prints of people
outside theoretical physics, have the appearance of being done in word
processors. They are later edited to the final form in journals.


2013/5/22 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com

 On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Michele Comitini 
 michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:

 The following argument is complete nonsense and stops me from reading the
 full article.  No one, unless writing a book that requires complex
 mathematical notation is so foul to use TeX instead of LaTeX.  If one does
 it means that he spends more time studying TeX than doing his homework.
  This is a  (even if fundamental) report not a mathematical essay so using
 a wysiwyg word processor suffice.


 I think this argument is a good one.  It suggests that the authors have
 not prepared the paper for submission to a physics journal; or, that, at
 any rate, it is not far along in the process.  Lubos Motl does not appear
 to be drawing a distinction between TeX and LaTeX; he is drawing a
 distinction between TeX/LaTeX, on one hand, and a simple PDF typed up in a
 normal word processor, on the other.  Presumably the former would be the
 expected form of submission to a mainstream physics journal.  This is one
 of the details that makes me think there is no intention to submit for
 publication.

 Eric




-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

  So in a sense the elimination of fakes is cumulative.

Bear in  mind that when Rossi says he has something he tends to follow up on it.
(Maybe not exactly as promised, but close to it).

Let's accept for the moment the OUTPUT analysis : it DOES produce the 
documented COP.

Electrical INPUT is a two-edged sword. It can be measured to 6 decimal places 
.. IF you do it correctly,
but if you don't cover ALL bases you might miss something.
(eg an AC-only meter might not notice DC, or HF AC beyond its spec).

But Rossi says he has a GAS-POWERED eCat. I believe him: ANY source of 
temperature stimulus will do.

It's rather hard to modulate/cheat a GAS meter, though the actual INPUT power 
delivered might only be known to ONE decimal place.

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-22 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

I'm wondering if Levi and al checked the quality of the electrical power! On
the topic regarding electrical measurements the report says that the
measurements were done with a PCE-830. The PCE-830 monitored the 3 phases
only and computed the energy consumption with data collected on the 3
phases. The PCE-830 can be fooled if the setup isn't as expected. For
example, the ground might be not the ground but a hidden phase. That's why
they should have checked:
- The quality of the ground
- The quality of the 3 phases regarding the neutral or between
phases
- The quality of the neutral (if present and used)
- The quality of the 50 Hz of the power line

That check will remove every concern about electrical input. Maybe they did
the check but there is no mention about that in the report of Levi and al.

To whom may I address this concern at the Levi's team and how ?

Arnaud
 -Original Message-
 From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com]
 Sent: mercredi 22 mai 2013 09:00
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
 
   So in a sense the elimination of fakes is cumulative.
 
 Bear in  mind that when Rossi says he has something he tends to follow up
 on it.
 (Maybe not exactly as promised, but close to it).
 
 Let's accept for the moment the OUTPUT analysis : it DOES produce the
 documented COP.
 
 Electrical INPUT is a two-edged sword. It can be measured to 6 decimal
 places .. IF you do it correctly,
 but if you don't cover ALL bases you might miss something.
 (eg an AC-only meter might not notice DC, or HF AC beyond its spec).
 
 But Rossi says he has a GAS-POWERED eCat. I believe him: ANY source of
 temperature stimulus will do.
 
 It's rather hard to modulate/cheat a GAS meter, though the actual INPUT
 power delivered might only be known to ONE decimal place.

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-22 Thread Patrick Ellul

Just adding a link to the register article.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/22/e_cat_test_claims_success_yet_again/
On 22/05/2013 5:55 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote:

 I'm wondering if Levi and al checked the quality of the electrical power!
 On
 the topic regarding electrical measurements the report says that the
 measurements were done with a PCE-830. The PCE-830 monitored the 3 phases
 only and computed the energy consumption with data collected on the 3
 phases. The PCE-830 can be fooled if the setup isn't as expected. For
 example, the ground might be not the ground but a hidden phase. That's why
 they should have checked:
 - The quality of the ground
 - The quality of the 3 phases regarding the neutral or between
 phases
 - The quality of the neutral (if present and used)
 - The quality of the 50 Hz of the power line

 That check will remove every concern about electrical input. Maybe they did
 the check but there is no mention about that in the report of Levi and al.

 To whom may I address this concern at the Levi's team and how ?

 Arnaud
  -Original Message-
  From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com]
  Sent: mercredi 22 mai 2013 09:00
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
 
So in a sense the elimination of fakes is cumulative.
 
  Bear in  mind that when Rossi says he has something he tends to follow up
  on it.
  (Maybe not exactly as promised, but close to it).
 
  Let's accept for the moment the OUTPUT analysis : it DOES produce the
  documented COP.
 
  Electrical INPUT is a two-edged sword. It can be measured to 6 decimal
  places .. IF you do it correctly,
  but if you don't cover ALL bases you might miss something.
  (eg an AC-only meter might not notice DC, or HF AC beyond its spec).
 
  But Rossi says he has a GAS-POWERED eCat. I believe him: ANY source of
  temperature stimulus will do.
 
  It's rather hard to modulate/cheat a GAS meter, though the actual INPUT
  power delivered might only be known to ONE decimal place.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

And I'll excerpt a comment
Rossi has been challenged to do a test where the power levels in all three 
wires supplying the apparatus are measured and he has refused. I have quickly 
skimbled the paper and the power measurement section makes no mention of 
measuring the power levels in all the cores connected up.

Given Rossi's history of fraud (Google it but there is a failed thermoelectric 
generator using waste heat and a failed oil from waste firm) one has to take 
him with a very large pinch of salt.

So - about these premier scientists who investigated and tested this 
device. They are not looking very good at the moment, are they?

The fly in the ointment is that the calibration run worked.

Andrew

- Original Message - 

  From: Patrick Ellul 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:06 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Just adding a link to the register article. 

  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/22/e_cat_test_claims_success_yet_again/

  On 22/05/2013 5:55 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote:

I'm wondering if Levi and al checked the quality of the electrical power! On
the topic regarding electrical measurements the report says that the
measurements were done with a PCE-830. The PCE-830 monitored the 3 phases
only and computed the energy consumption with data collected on the 3
phases. The PCE-830 can be fooled if the setup isn't as expected. For
example, the ground might be not the ground but a hidden phase. That's why
they should have checked:
- The quality of the ground
- The quality of the 3 phases regarding the neutral or between
phases
- The quality of the neutral (if present and used)
- The quality of the 50 Hz of the power line

That check will remove every concern about electrical input. Maybe they did
the check but there is no mention about that in the report of Levi and al.

To whom may I address this concern at the Levi's team and how ?

Arnaud
 -Original Message-
 From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com]
 Sent: mercredi 22 mai 2013 09:00
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

   So in a sense the elimination of fakes is cumulative.

 Bear in  mind that when Rossi says he has something he tends to follow up
 on it.
 (Maybe not exactly as promised, but close to it).

 Let's accept for the moment the OUTPUT analysis : it DOES produce the
 documented COP.

 Electrical INPUT is a two-edged sword. It can be measured to 6 decimal
 places .. IF you do it correctly,
 but if you don't cover ALL bases you might miss something.
 (eg an AC-only meter might not notice DC, or HF AC beyond its spec).

 But Rossi says he has a GAS-POWERED eCat. I believe him: ANY source of
 temperature stimulus will do.

 It's rather hard to modulate/cheat a GAS meter, though the actual INPUT
 power delivered might only be known to ONE decimal place.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-22 Thread Jouni Valkonen


I think that there is plenty enough benefit that Rossi has a good paying job. 
He does not need to make millions out of it, but it is plenty enough that he 
receives enough capital for adequate living standards. 

There are plenty other similar hoaxes such as BLP, Steorn and Inteligentry who 
are running extended hoaxes. Although Inteligentry's tale is probably finished 
due to FBI raid.

It must be understood that these inventions are the most important inventions 
in the history of industrial age. Therefore they are just too valuable to be 
kept hidden for decades. Rossi has been around already 6 years and he is doing 
still rather well financially.

As successful and practical cold fusion would be pushing World civilization 
immediately into level 1.0 at kardashev scale, Rossi has delayed this 
transformation already six years due to his greed. Of course Rossi is not the 
greediest person who have ever lived, but he is just doing something that is 
profitable enough for extended periods of time. Soon Rossi is ready to retire 
due to age.

If Rossi would go public with his device, Oil price would go down 75 % in just 
few months, because the average production cost of oil is $25 per barrel. This 
would be the first global effect and they are certainly not small, if e-cat's 
impact is measured in dollars.

―Jouni


On May 22, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 What do you think of my hoax theories?
 
 Well, when I look for a hoax, I also ask myself Where is the benefit?

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-22 Thread Terry Blanton

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 The ECAT is made of metal if I recall correctly

I thought the first test used a ceramic.

Darn, gotta read it again.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

It's steel (with different steel end caps), inside corundum ceramic, inside 
silicon nitride ceramic, with a  coat of paint.

Andrew

- Original Message - 
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com 
wrote:

The ECAT is made of metal if I recall correctly

I thought the first test used a ceramic.

Darn, gotta read it again.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 Jouni Valkonen wrote:

I think that there is plenty enough benefit that Rossi has a good
paying job. He does not need to make millions out of it, but it is
plenty enough that he receives enough capital for adequate living
standards.

This would be the world's worst way to make a living! Rossi has a difficult
time with money. He has spent tremendous amount of his own money on this.
If he engaged in a con game he has conned himself.

He is the least convincing confidence man I have ever heard of.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-22 Thread Jones Beene

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Jouni Valkonen wrote:

I think that there is plenty enough benefit that Rossi has a good paying
job. He does not need to make millions out of it, but it is plenty enough
that he receives enough capital for adequate living standards. 

This would be the world's worst way to make a living! Rossi has a difficult
time with money. He has spent tremendous amount of his own money on this. If
he engaged in a con game he has conned himself.

He is the least convincing confidence man I have ever heard of.




Plus, AR sold his biofuel company EON for about one million Euro and could
have retired comfortably to Miami on that income. This is a matter of public
record. 

 

Instead - he reinvests the proceeds of the EON sale into his project ! Does
that sound like a scammer?

 

It is preposterous that anyone would claim that he does this sale of a
profitable company - and then reinvestment the proceeds to perpetuate as
scam, with which to obtain enough capital for adequate living when he
already had that to begin with. Instead he has to go through the constant
reminders of his past legal difficulties, in order to find a solution to one
of societies greatest problems?

 

Get a life! These people like Krivit, etc - who blindly suggest scam because
they personally were not honored with a demo - ought to at least do their
homework first and read what is available in the public record before
spouting crap about scam, since there is no plausible motive which would be
worth the risk.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

Plus, AR sold his biofuel company EON for about one million Euro and could
have retired comfortably to Miami on that income. This is a matter of
public record.

** **

Instead - he reinvests the proceeds of the EON sale into his project !
Does that sound like a scammer?

This reminds me of the old joke: Do you know how to make a small fortune
in [cold fusion / real estate / software]? Start with a large fortune.

As Jones says, there is no motive and no evidence of a scam.

Regarding Krivit -- the man in the pulpit -- he added some interesting
comments from Essen here:

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/

(Scroll down)

Essen said what I said, I am glad to see:

SBK: Is there any reason you did not use either mass-flow calorimetry or
envelope calorimetry to analyze for total heat enthalpy?
HE: Yes, practical reasons. The current setup made it difficult. (Practical
reasons determined by the reactor, its placement, and the available
equipment.)

[I would add, as I did the other day, this would quench the reaction, or
cause a steam explosion. It would be difficult.]

Here are two other interesting details:

SBK: Who acquired or supplied the instrumentation?
HE: Giuseppe Levi mainly, with some input from the Uppsala group.

SBK: Who tested and/or calibrated the instrumentation?
HE: Levi and Foschi did the main work, but several cross-checks were done
by the rest of the participants. The temperature measurement cameras were
checked on boiling water. The electric measurements were checked with
standard resistors.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


There are just too many positive indicators for this to be a scam.  I guess the 
skeptics are reaching for straws in any way they can after the release of the 
third party report.  Any bets as to how long they remain on the wrong side of 
history?

Has everyone noticed the lack of comments from Mr. Cude?  Perhaps he should 
give us his point of view as it will be enlightening.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 12:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:




Plus, AR sold his biofuelcompany EON for about one million Euro and could have 
retired comfortably toMiami on that income. This is a matter of public record. 
 
Instead - he reinvests theproceeds of the EON sale into his project ! Does that 
sound like a scammer?




This reminds me of the old joke: Do you know how to make a small fortune in 
[cold fusion / real estate / software]? Start with a large fortune.


As Jones says, there is no motive and no evidence of a scam.




Regarding Krivit -- the man in the pulpit -- he added some interesting comments 
from Essen here:

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/

(Scroll down)

Essen said what I said, I am glad to see:


SBK: Is there any reason you did not use either mass-flow calorimetry or 
envelope calorimetry to analyze for total heat enthalpy?
HE: Yes, practical reasons. The current setup made it difficult. (Practical 
reasons determined by the reactor, its placement, and the available equipment.)

[I would add, as I did the other day, this would quench the reaction, or cause 
a steam explosion. It would be difficult.]


Here are two other interesting details:

SBK: Who acquired or supplied the instrumentation?
HE: Giuseppe Levi mainly, with some input from the Uppsala group.

SBK: Who tested and/or calibrated the instrumentation?
HE: Levi and Foschi did the main work, but several cross-checks were done by 
the rest of the participants. The temperature measurement cameras were checked 
on boiling water. The electric measurements were checked with standard 
resistors.






- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-22 Thread Terry Blanton

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Plus, AR sold his biofuel company EON for about one million Euro and could
 have retired comfortably to Miami on that income.

You can retire on $1.3M?  Can you show me how?  I think I need about $3M.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

Depends upon your retirement age. :-)  $100k will work if you are 90.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 1:10 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Plus, AR sold his biofuel company EON for about one million Euro and could
 have retired comfortably to Miami on that income.

You can retire on $1.3M?  Can you show me how?  I think I need about $3M.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-22 Thread Edmund Storms

Excellent analysis, Jones. You have nailed the essential reason why  
this is not a scam. Jed has done the same. Instead, Rossi is doing  
what other people do all the time in all aspects of science and  
commerce, but he is doing it under a microscope. Most similar efforts  
are just as filled with reasons to critique, but no one cares to do  
this. In fact I have reviewed hundreds of papers and I have never  
found a single one that did not contain a flaw or poor explanation  
that a determined critic could not exploit. Rossi is doing a good job  
under difficult circumstances. I wonder how well the skeptics would  
perform if they were in Rossi's shoes?


Ed Storms
On May 22, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jones Beene wrote:



From: Jed Rothwell

Jouni Valkonen wrote:
I think that there is plenty enough benefit that Rossi has a good  
paying job. He does not need to make millions out of it, but it is  
plenty enough that he receives enough capital for adequate living  
standards.
This would be the world's worst way to make a living! Rossi has a  
difficult time with money. He has spent tremendous amount of his own  
money on this. If he engaged in a con game he has conned himself.


He is the least convincing confidence man I have ever heard of.


Plus, AR sold his biofuel company EON for about one million Euro and  
could have retired comfortably to Miami on that income. This is a  
matter of public record.


Instead - he reinvests the proceeds of the EON sale into his  
project ! Does that sound like a scammer?


It is preposterous that anyone would claim that he does this sale of  
a profitable company – and then reinvestment the proceeds to  
perpetuate as scam, with which to obtain enough capital for  
“adequate living” when he already had that to begin with. Instead he  
has to go through the constant reminders of his past legal  
difficulties, in order to find a solution to one of societies  
greatest problems?


Get a life! These people like Krivit, etc - who blindly suggest scam  
because they personally were not honored with a demo - ought to at  
least do their homework first and read what is available in the  
public record before spouting crap about scam, since there is no  
plausible motive which would be worth the risk.


Jones

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


We might find out how the skeptics do in Rossi's shoes soon.  They are facing 
some difficult times trying to prove that Rossi and the third party tests are 
not accurate.  I wonder how fast they can backpedal?

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 1:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Excellent analysis, Jones. You have nailed the essential reason why this is not 
a scam. Jed has done the same. Instead, Rossi is doing what other people do all 
the time in all aspects of science and commerce, but he is doing it under a 
microscope. Most similar efforts are just as filled with reasons to critique, 
but no one cares to do this. In fact I have reviewed hundreds of papers and I 
have never found a single one that did not contain a flaw or poor explanation 
that a determined critic could not exploit. Rossi is doing a good job under 
difficult circumstances. I wonder how well the skeptics would perform if they 
were in Rossi's shoes?


Ed Storms

On May 22, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jones Beene wrote:



 
From: Jed Rothwell
 

Jouni Valkonen wrote:

I think that there is plenty enough benefit that Rossi has a good paying job. 
He does not need to make millions out of it, but it is plenty enough that he 
receives enough capital for adequate living standards. 

This would be the world's worst way to make a living! Rossi has a difficult 
time with money. He has spent tremendous amount of his own money on this. If he 
engaged in a con game he has conned himself.

He is the least convincing confidence man I have ever heard of.



Plus, AR sold his biofuel company EON for about one million Euro and could have 
retired comfortably to Miami on that income. This is a matter of public record.
 
Instead - he reinvests the proceeds of the EON sale into his project ! Does 
that sound like a scammer?
 
It is preposterous that anyone would claim that he does this sale of a 
profitable company – and then reinvestment the proceeds to perpetuate as scam, 
with which to obtain enough capital for “adequate living” when he already had 
that to begin with. Instead he has to go through the constant reminders of his 
past legal difficulties, in order to find a solution to one of societies 
greatest problems?
 
Get a life! These people like Krivit, etc - who blindly suggest scam because 
they personally were not honored with a demo - ought to at least do their 
homework first and read what is available in the public record before spouting 
crap about scam, since there is no plausible motive which would be worth the 
risk.
 
Jones

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat decay
 curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat does
 not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat
 producing reaction in addition to the electric heater.


Did Fleishmann take into account the dynamics of the control cell in
interpreting the curve?

p18 The electrical power to the dummy was handled by the same control box,
but without the ON/OFF
cycle of the resistor coils. Thus, the power applied to the dummy was
continuous

That would be fine if the dynamics weren't important to the test, but on
p25 we see:

Plot 3. Average surface temperature trend of the E-Cat HT2 over several
minutes of
operation.  Note the heating and cooling trends of the device, which appear
to be different from
the exponential characteristics of generic resistor.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
 Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:41:33 AM

 p18 The electrical power to the dummy was handled by the same
 control box, but without the ON/OFF
 cycle of the resistor coils. Thus, the power applied to the dummy was
 continuous
 
 
 That would be fine if the dynamics weren't important to the test, but
 on p25 we see:
 
 
 Plot 3. Average surface temperature trend of the E-Cat HT2 over
 several minutes of
 operation. Note the heating and cooling trends of the device, which
 appear to be different from
 the exponential characteristics of generic resistor.

As I indicated earlier, the exponential RC time constant depends on a SINGLE 
LINEAR resistor (conductivity*length) and Capacitor (specific heat*volume).

First, even if they were linear, it's a complex MESH of RC's (see my Spice 
analysis of the heat exchanger).

Second, the dominant term in heat loss from the surface of the cylinder (ie the 
resistor) is radiative, varying as T^4
Only the smaller convective component is linear with temperature.

Third, we know where the heating resistor is. But we don't know where the Ni/H 
thermalization occurs. In the powder? In the H? In the steel surrounding the 
powder?

I sketched a tentative RC mesh model. It has at LEAST 30 resistors (more than 
half non-linear) and 10 Capacitors.

I'd eat crow/my hat/whatever if the result came out even vaguely exponential.

This is a red herring (ie a complete distraction and waste of time) which is 
irrelevant to determining the nature and source of heat.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Alan, we have too many crows around here and I will capture some for you if 
required.

The key thought about the temperature waveform is as follows:  Rossi wants to 
have the largest possible stable COP.  You achieve that by allowing the 
temperature of the heat producing material to reach a value where the internal 
heat generation is exactly balanced by the heat being extracted to the outside.

If you do not keep the temperature slightly below this point then the device 
will proceed toward thermal failure.  The closer you can approach this critical 
temperature, the longer the temperature will hesitate before beginning its 
downward path.  I have played with a model with this characteristic and find 
that the COP of 6 is not too difficult to achieve, but trying to obtain more 
tends to eliminate the margin you need for stable operation.

It is also necessary to operate the system in a pulse width modulation mode 
just as Rossi demonstrates.   His waveforms shown in the third party test are 
entirely consistent.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 1:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


 From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
 Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:41:33 AM

 p18 The electrical power to the dummy was handled by the same
 control box, but without the ON/OFF
 cycle of the resistor coils. Thus, the power applied to the dummy was
 continuous
 
 
 That would be fine if the dynamics weren't important to the test, but
 on p25 we see:
 
 
 Plot 3. Average surface temperature trend of the E-Cat HT2 over
 several minutes of
 operation. Note the heating and cooling trends of the device, which
 appear to be different from
 the exponential characteristics of generic resistor.

As I indicated earlier, the exponential RC time constant depends on a SINGLE 
LINEAR resistor (conductivity*length) and Capacitor (specific heat*volume).

First, even if they were linear, it's a complex MESH of RC's (see my Spice 
analysis of the heat exchanger).

Second, the dominant term in heat loss from the surface of the cylinder (ie the 
resistor) is radiative, varying as T^4
Only the smaller convective component is linear with temperature.

Third, we know where the heating resistor is. But we don't know where the Ni/H 
thermalization occurs. In the powder? In the H? In the steel surrounding the 
powder?

I sketched a tentative RC mesh model. It has at LEAST 30 resistors (more than 
half non-linear) and 10 Capacitors.

I'd eat crow/my hat/whatever if the result came out even vaguely exponential.

This is a red herring (ie a complete distraction and waste of time) which is 
irrelevant to determining the nature and source of heat.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 I sketched a tentative RC mesh model. It has at LEAST 30 resistors
 (more than half non-linear) and 10 Capacitors.

I can do a zero'th order model with 2 linear resistors, a capacitor and a 
non-linear resistor.
(I'd have to figure out how to do a T^4 model. Maybe a lookup table)

But I still think it's a waste of time, so I'm going to update my fakes paper 
first.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

 Electrical INPUT is a two-edged sword. It can be measured to 6
 decimal places .. IF you do it correctly,
 but if you don't cover ALL bases you might miss something.
 (eg an AC-only meter might not notice DC, or HF AC beyond its spec).

I've come to the conclusion that the only way to overcome the power-side fake 
is to put a power conditioner between Rossi's power plug (maybe miswired per 
Bryce etc, or with a DC component) and his control box.

I'd recommend a motor-generator, as it gives a nice sine output. Then the meter 
will work correctly, between the conditioner and the control box. 

They run at 95% + efficiency. You can probably rent one for 6 months.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

I've come to the conclusion that the only way to overcome the power-side
 fake is to put a power conditioner between Rossi's power plug (maybe
 miswired per Bryce etc, or with a DC component) and his control box.


That would do it. But the fact is, any $20 watt meter would also do it.
Experts tell me there is no way you can fool one. They are better than
meters costing thousands of dollars were 20 years ago.

Levi has one of those things. I expect he used it. He did in previous tests.

I suggest you should stop fantasizing about this. Rossi did not take apart
the wall and install secret equipment that he turned on and then turned off
during the calibration. He did not find a way to send so much power through
an ordinary electric cord that he melted steel and ceramic. That is not
possible. You can dismiss it from your mind. The electric cord would have
burned. The other gadgets such as the computers plugged into that circuit
would have been roached.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

2013-05-22 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

 -Original Message-
 From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com]
 Sent: mercredi 22 mai 2013 22:19
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

  Electrical INPUT is a two-edged sword. It can be measured to 6
  decimal places .. IF you do it correctly,
  but if you don't cover ALL bases you might miss something.
  (eg an AC-only meter might not notice DC, or HF AC beyond its spec).

 I've come to the conclusion that the only way to overcome the power-side
 fake is to put a power conditioner between Rossi's power plug (maybe
 miswired per Bryce etc, or with a DC component) and his control box.

 I'd recommend a motor-generator, as it gives a nice sine output. Then the
 meter will work correctly, between the conditioner and the control box.

A basic quality control check of the power-side will be at first a good
step. The idea to put conditioner between Rossi's plug and the wall power
socket will remove any doubt for a miswired error (Voluntary or not)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

It can be done.  Give it a try and you might become convinced.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 2:21 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 I sketched a tentative RC mesh model. It has at LEAST 30 resistors
 (more than half non-linear) and 10 Capacitors.

I can do a zero'th order model with 2 linear resistors, a capacitor and a 
non-linear resistor.
(I'd have to figure out how to do a T^4 model. Maybe a lookup table)

But I still think it's a waste of time, so I'm going to update my fakes paper 
first.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

I doubt that Rossi would allow a power conditioner, because he himself states 
that there is some initial RF powering going on to kickstart the device. Since 
the experimenters walked up to the experiment after it had been turned on, we 
don't know for sure whether the existing cabling was used to impart the RF, or 
a separate kickstart cable. Were I to guess, I would assume that the existing 
cabling was used, and that the RF generator resides in the control box.

There's a whole lot of detail about the input side that would benefit from the 
light of day. What's required is an interview with the Swedes from someone who 
understands the issues.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:27 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed


  Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:



I've come to the conclusion that the only way to overcome the power-side 
fake is to put a power conditioner between Rossi's power plug (maybe miswired 
per Bryce etc, or with a DC component) and his control box.



  That would do it. But the fact is, any $20 watt meter would also do it. 
Experts tell me there is no way you can fool one. They are better than meters 
costing thousands of dollars were 20 years ago.


  Levi has one of those things. I expect he used it. He did in previous tests.


  I suggest you should stop fantasizing about this. Rossi did not take apart 
the wall and install secret equipment that he turned on and then turned off 
during the calibration. He did not find a way to send so much power through an 
ordinary electric cord that he melted steel and ceramic. That is not possible. 
You can dismiss it from your mind. The electric cord would have burned. The 
other gadgets such as the computers plugged into that circuit would have been 
roached.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:


 There's a whole lot of detail about the input side that would benefit from
 the light of day. What's required is an interview with the Swedes from
 someone who understands the issues.


And who understands Swedish. Any volunteers?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

Talar ni Svenska. Not much, anyway.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:46 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

  Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

There's a whole lot of detail about the input side that would benefit from 
the light of day. What's required is an interview with the Swedes from someone 
who understands the issues.

  And who understands Swedish. Any volunteers?

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

 **
 I doubt that Rossi would allow a power conditioner, because he himself
 states that there is some initial RF powering going on to kickstart the
 device.

 You misunderstand:

The power conditioner would be placed between the wall socket and any other
equipment in the room, including the RF  generator.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 ...
 I suggest you should stop fantasizing about this. Rossi did not take apart
 the wall and install secret equipment that he turned on and then turned off
 during the calibration. He did not find a way to send so much power through
 an ordinary electric cord that he melted steel and ceramic. That is not
 possible. You can dismiss it from your mind. The electric cord would have
 burned. The other gadgets such as the computers plugged into that circuit
 would have been roached.


There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of the
strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:

That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
wavelengths observed.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of the
 strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:

 That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
 wavelengths observed.


You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more detailed
discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be helpful.
Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.

You might also address the fact that the first device melted.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

I wrote:

That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
 wavelengths observed.


 You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more detailed
 discussion of that, with equations and examples?


I realize you challenged Mary Yugo and other skeptics to do this analysis.
That is a forlorn hope. They will not do it. So, why don't you do it? I
would appreciate that. Others here can check your work.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

2013-05-22 Thread Brad Lowe

Did anyone scope the the power in for 50Hz? Or allow the researchers to
choose any outlet? I imagine anything on the same heater circuit would fry
if someone tried to insert an extra 500 watts. A light bulb added to the
circuit would have detected additional power... or any decent UPS will
include power line conditioning which will deliever a pure sine wave AC
voltage..

Besides a circuit diagram showing all of the inputs, outputs, and test
equipment, are there some other notes that should be added to the report?
Anyone know if peer review is in the works?

I think its exciting to think that this test was done accurately and we can
anticipate that there will be more positive tests like this to follow in
the very near future.

- Brad






On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wrote:

 That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
 wavelengths observed.


 You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more
 detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples?


 I realize you challenged Mary Yugo and other skeptics to do this analysis.
 That is a forlorn hope. They will not do it. So, why don't you do it? I
 would appreciate that. Others here can check your work.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-22 Thread Robert Lynn

An IR laser wouldn't need to be intense, it/they could be spread out over a
wide beam/spot, not eye dangerous, and not particularly noticeable if you
weren't looking at it and you were in close proximity to the hot e-cat
(could even be optically triggered to turn off off if someone moved in
front). Not saying it was done, just that it could be done, and would only
cost a few $1000s at ~$4/Watt for laser diode bars.

And Andrew makes a valid point about the power supplies. Clamp ammeters
are a bad solution compared to inline resistance measurement, + voltages
across all the wires. The meter in question can measure harmonic
distortion, but looks at a primary frequency and assumes balanced 3 phase
AC, so an additional high frequency, DC or other distortions would likely
be invisible to the meter.

It appears that these clamp ammeters on this AC optimised meter cannot
measure DC, which is unfortunate seeing that some Hall-Effect type clamp
ammeters can.
http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/clamp-meter-pce-holding-gmbh-clamp-meter-pce-830-1-det_56526.htm?_list=kat_listpos=12
Most three phase sources also have a ground wire, that would be unlikely to
have been checked for current (I doubt the testers could check this with
the equipment they had without disconnecting the power supply, which they
probably couldn't during the test).

And the possibility of a DC supply grounded through the frame would also
need to be checked - could be done by putting clamp around all wires, just
as for the 3 phase power supply.

Point is that it looks like it might be possible to hide additional
electrical power supply within what the testers looked at, and we don't
have enough information from the testers to check on all of these issues,
however it is possible that they performed sufficient checks.

I am on balance fairly convinced, but like many I harbour doubts about
Rossi based on his dodgy history and apparent willingness to mislead at
times. It needs rigorous (skeptical) testing to really get doubters onside.

On 22 May 2013 02:47, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers. Can you
imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path
radiation caused serious injuries? This is far outside the realm of
reality.

The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be
set aside with the proper scrutiny.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly
coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know.

If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.

Andrew

- Original Message -
*From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that
they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers? Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

2013-05-22 Thread Daniel Rocha

Realistic speaking, to get a respectable scientists or engineers doing
formal peer review for a magazine is an impossible task right now. So, this
is a catch 22 problem to begin with.


2013/5/22 Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com

 Besides a circuit diagram showing all of the inputs, outputs, and test
 equipment, are there some other notes that should be added to the report?
 Anyone know if peer review is in the works?


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

An IR laser wouldn't need to be intense, it/they could be spread out over a
 wide beam/spot, not eye dangerous, and not particularly noticeable if you
 weren't looking at it . . .


You are joking! I have seen lasers strike objects, such as the items in a
cash register checkout line. You can't miss that. It is obvious. We have
all seen it.

If you got near it or put your hand over it, you would  be burned. At those
power levels, if you looked up, you would be permanently blinded.

This scenario is 100% impossible.



 And Andrew makes a valid point about the power supplies.  Clamp ammeters
 are a bad solution compared to inline resistance measurement, + voltages
 across all the wires.  The meter in question can measure harmonic
 distortion, but looks at a primary frequency and assumes balanced 3 phase
 AC, so an additional high frequency, DC or other distortions would likely
 be invisible to the meter.


Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now explain how you could use these invisible frequencies
to send enough electricity through an ordinary wire to melt ceramics and 3
mm thick steel, without melting the wire.

If you can't explain how to do that, you can forget this and all other
hidden electricity hypotheses.

Keep it simple. Address the big questions and the obviously questions
first. Then tell us about DC and other distortions.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

I wrote:


 You are joking! I have seen lasers strike objects, such as the items in a
 cash register checkout line. You can't miss that. It is obvious. We have
 all seen it.


Oops. You said infrared lasers. My mistake.

My other points hold. People would be burned and blinded.

It just isn't possible.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-22 Thread Axil Axil

Rossi would have had to design a world class electric fraud plan to
anticipate what equipment was going to be used in the test.


He did not know what the test plan was and could not know if this fraud
plan would cover every case and equipment configuration.

As a test plan developer myself, I would be hard put to come up with a
fraud plan that was perfect in every possible case, knowing full well if I
failed to pull off the scam plan, the scam I had worked so hard to develop
would then be all over and exposed.


No, the best solution to the systems design is to insure that the system
works. This in itself is very hard to do.


Even in scamming, Kiss is important. I would not first melt down a system
as a ploy, which is way too complicated of a scam plan, IMHO.


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 An IR laser wouldn't need to be intense, it/they could be spread out over
 a wide beam/spot, not eye dangerous, and not particularly noticeable if you
 weren't looking at it . . .


 You are joking! I have seen lasers strike objects, such as the items in a
 cash register checkout line. You can't miss that. It is obvious. We have
 all seen it.

 If you got near it or put your hand over it, you would  be burned. At
 those power levels, if you looked up, you would be permanently blinded.

 This scenario is 100% impossible.



 And Andrew makes a valid point about the power supplies.  Clamp ammeters
 are a bad solution compared to inline resistance measurement, + voltages
 across all the wires.  The meter in question can measure harmonic
 distortion, but looks at a primary frequency and assumes balanced 3 phase
 AC, so an additional high frequency, DC or other distortions would likely
 be invisible to the meter.


 Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now explain how you could use these invisible
 frequencies to send enough electricity through an ordinary wire to melt
 ceramics and 3 mm thick steel, without melting the wire.

 If you can't explain how to do that, you can forget this and all other
 hidden electricity hypotheses.

 Keep it simple. Address the big questions and the obviously questions
 first. Then tell us about DC and other distortions.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-22 Thread Axil Axil

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
wrote:

An IR laser wouldn't need to be intense, it/they could be spread out over
a wide beam/spot, not eye dangerous, and not particularly noticeable if you
weren't looking at it and you were in close proximity to the hot e-cat
(could even be optically triggered to turn off off if someone moved in
front). Not saying it was done, just that it could be done, and would only
cost a few $1000s at ~$4/Watt for laser diode bars.

It appears that these clamp ammeters on this AC optimised meter cannot
measure DC, which is unfortunate seeing that some Hall-Effect type clamp
ammeters can.

http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/clamp-meter-pce-holding-gmbh-clamp-meter-pce-830-1-det_56526.htm?_list=kat_listpos=12
Most three phase sources also have a ground wire, that would be unlikely
to have been checked for current (I doubt the testers could check this with
the equipment they had without disconnecting the power supply, which they
probably couldn't during the test).

And the possibility of a DC supply grounded through the frame would also
need to be checked - could be done by putting clamp around all wires, just
as for the 3 phase power supply.

On 22 May 2013 02:47, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can
be set aside with the proper scrutiny.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly
coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know.

If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.

Andrew

- Original Message -
*From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that
they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers? Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A)
q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(5.6703e-8, s)
q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055, r)
q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
Th=483.6006 Kelvin
Th=210.451 Celsius

using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php

peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter

or 6 micrometers

That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no convective
losses).

That is way into the infrared.  The excursions into the visible wavelength
occurred with 360W.



So, what


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of
 the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:

 That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
 wavelengths observed.


 You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more detailed
 discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be helpful.
 Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.

 You might also address the fact that the first device melted.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

Erratum:  Strike the So, what...


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
 q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A)
 q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(5.6703e-8, s)
 q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055, r)
  q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
 q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
 Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
  Th=483.6006 Kelvin
 Th=210.451 Celsius

 using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php

 peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter

 or 6 micrometers

 That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no convective
 losses).

 That is way into the infrared.  The excursions into the visible wavelength
 occurred with 360W.



 So, what


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of
 the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:

 That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
 wavelengths observed.


 You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more
 detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be
 helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.

 You might also address the fact that the first device melted.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

Erratum: I also left out the substitution step for room temperature:

360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ;  subst(289)

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Erratum:  Strike the So, what...


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
 q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A)
 q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(5.6703e-8, s)
 q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055, r)
  q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
 q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
 Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
  Th=483.6006 Kelvin
 Th=210.451 Celsius

 using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php

 peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter

 or 6 micrometers

 That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no convective
 losses).

 That is way into the infrared.  The excursions into the visible
 wavelength occurred with 360W.



 So, what


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of
 the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:

 That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
 wavelengths observed.


 You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more
 detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be
 helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.

 You might also address the fact that the first device melted.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

2013-05-22 Thread Axil Axil

peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter

or 6 micrometers

That is about the diameter of the Rossi micro-powder, could there be a
dipole blackbody resonant condition at work here?  Of course there is!


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:59 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Erratum: I also left out the substitution step for room temperature:

 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ;  subst(289)


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Erratum:  Strike the So, what...


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
 q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A)
 q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(5.6703e-8, s)
 q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055, r)
  q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
 q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
 Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
  Th=483.6006 Kelvin
 Th=210.451 Celsius

 using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php

 peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter

 or 6 micrometers

 That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no
 convective losses).

 That is way into the infrared.  The excursions into the visible
 wavelength occurred with 360W.



 So, what


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of
 the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:

 That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
 wavelengths observed.


 You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more
 detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be
 helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.

 You might also address the fact that the first device melted.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

One final erratum (hopefully):  In the November run when the device
overheated to visible wavelengths, the input power was 1kW (p2), not 360W.
 Therefore:

360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)
1000=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)  ; subst(1000, 360)

Th=(59549289748750/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4) ; solve(Th)
Th=611.17587 Kelvin
Th=338.026 Celsius

using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php

peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 4.741300568689E-6 meter

Still deep into the infrared.




On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Erratum: I also left out the substitution step for room temperature:

 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ;  subst(289)


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Erratum:  Strike the So, what...


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
 q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A)
 q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(5.6703e-8, s)
 q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055, r)
  q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
 q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
 Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
  Th=483.6006 Kelvin
 Th=210.451 Celsius

 using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php

 peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter

 or 6 micrometers

 That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no
 convective losses).

 That is way into the infrared.  The excursions into the visible
 wavelength occurred with 360W.



 So, what


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of
 the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:

 That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
 wavelengths observed.


 You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more
 detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be
 helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.

 You might also address the fact that the first device melted.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

I can't resist:

What power level is required to get that device to barely enter the visible
wavelengths (700nm), again, assuming no losses other than black body?

again using http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation_t.php at 700nm:

blackbody temperature (T) = 4139.6692857143   kelvin

q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)
q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(2.9367203218388994*10^14-Tc^4)  ;
subst(4139.6692857143, Th)
q=705199.0585641474*pi
q=2.2154481E6W

Yeah, Rossi had a really high frequency power supply pumping even 1/10th of
that into the E-Cat HT.


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:40 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 One final erratum (hopefully):  In the November run when the device
 overheated to visible wavelengths, the input power was 1kW (p2), not 360W.
  Therefore:

 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)
 1000=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)  ; subst(1000, 360)

 Th=(59549289748750/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4) ; solve(Th)
 Th=611.17587 Kelvin
 Th=338.026 Celsius

 using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php

 peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 4.741300568689E-6 meter

 Still deep into the infrared.




 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Erratum: I also left out the substitution step for room temperature:

 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ;  subst(289)


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Erratum:  Strike the So, what...


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

 q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
 q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A)
 q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(5.6703e-8,
 s)
 q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055, r)
  q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
 q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
 Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
  Th=483.6006 Kelvin
 Th=210.451 Celsius

 using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php

 peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter

 or 6 micrometers

 That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no
 convective losses).

 That is way into the infrared.  The excursions into the visible
 wavelength occurred with 360W.



 So, what


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one
 of the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:

 That the power input could not conceivably have produced the
 radiation wavelengths observed.


 You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more
 detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be
 helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.

 You might also address the fact that the first device melted.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

A bright analysis, dear Jed! An anticipated answer to the paid
killers (only Mary Yugo has surfaced till now, brave girl sui
generis) I would gladly invite you to extend this writing to a
*guest editorial *for my blog, even if you had not accepted the
LENR vs LENR+ dichotomy till now.
Cousin Peter


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I agree Jed.  They did this the right way and it will be difficult for
 anyone to prove otherwise.

 You mention the cooling time shape not being that associated with
 normal processes which agrees with the model that I constructed earlier.
 In an ideal world with a very high COP the cooling curve would hesitate at
 the maximum temperature point for a relatively long time before beginning
 its decline.  The trick is to come close to a zero slope at the initial
 point but ensure that the curve is always falling after the heating
 resistance is un powered.

 Dave
  -Original Message-
 From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Mon, May 20, 2013 10:10 pm
 Subject: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

  I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people
 think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement
 coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a
 single thing I wish they had checked but did not.

  In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any
 chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for
 output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even
 though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in
 every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase
 output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they
 know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees
 away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but
 rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if
 all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first
 set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly,
 casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into
 account.

  Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics
 and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the
 nature of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no
 adjustments for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an
 electrically heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It
 is hands-off in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the
 cell, and the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which
 placed below the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the
 reaction to be sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi
 could possibly do to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with
 them. They left a video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure
 there was no hanky-panky. They wrote:

 The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure
 the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a
 nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements
 themselves.

  They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of
 chemistry by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the
 first test, they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting
 point, rather than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the
 reactant. In the second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g
 but they round that up to 1 g.

  They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat
 decay curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat
 does not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat
 producing reaction in addition to the electric heater.

  I like it!

  - Jed




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

From Peter:

 ... (only Mary Yugo has surfaced till now, ...

Where? A link? What did she say?

Someone should start a thread pointing to what the Rossi skeptics, like
Cude, Yugo, or S. Krivit have decided to say about these latest
developments. I haven't been able to find anything. so far. 

Related to this, browsing New Energy Time shows me nothing new. Krivit's
site has two No Cold Fusion graphic logos plastered on the front page
related to two topics: University LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold
Fusion, and for Retired NRL LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold
Fusion. It still baffles me why Krivit felt the need to go after the term
CF as if it was a pinata and his words are the stick.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

Comment on my blog to this most recent paper.
My answers to Mary
I wrote to Steve Krivit signalling this Report, no answer.
I sincerely fear this very talented journalist is depresed
obsessed, who knows...
Peter


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

 From Peter:

  ... (only Mary Yugo has surfaced till now, ...

 Where? A link? What did she say?

 Someone should start a thread pointing to what the Rossi skeptics, like
 Cude, Yugo, or S. Krivit have decided to say about these latest
 developments. I haven't been able to find anything. so far.

 Related to this, browsing New Energy Time shows me nothing new. Krivit's
 site has two No Cold Fusion graphic logos plastered on the front page
 related to two topics: University LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold
 Fusion, and for Retired NRL LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold
 Fusion. It still baffles me why Krivit felt the need to go after the term
 CF as if it was a pinata and his words are the stick.

 Regards,
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 svjart.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks
 tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Patrick Ellul

This is Krivit's reaction on the Forbes article:

Steven B. Krivit  http://blogs.forbes.com/people/stevenbkrivit/9 hours ago

This is a partially independent measurement, performed on a device that was
built by and controlled by Rossi, and located in Rossi’s facility. The
measurement was performed by some of the parties that have been involved in
this scam since 2011.

The fact that the authors of the paper have stated that they have performed
an independent test is a significant misrepresentation and would qualify as
research misconduct by some organizations.

Steven B. Krivit
Publisher and Senior Editor, New Energy Times
Editor-in-Chief, 2011 Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Comment on my blog to this most recent paper.
 My answers to Mary
 I wrote to Steve Krivit signalling this Report, no answer.
 I sincerely fear this very talented journalist is depresed
 obsessed, who knows...
 Peter


 On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
 orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

 From Peter:

  ... (only Mary Yugo has surfaced till now, ...

 Where? A link? What did she say?

 Someone should start a thread pointing to what the Rossi skeptics, like
 Cude, Yugo, or S. Krivit have decided to say about these latest
 developments. I haven't been able to find anything. so far.

 Related to this, browsing New Energy Time shows me nothing new. Krivit's
 site has two No Cold Fusion graphic logos plastered on the front page
 related to two topics: University LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold
 Fusion, and for Retired NRL LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold
 Fusion. It still baffles me why Krivit felt the need to go after the term
 CF as if it was a pinata and his words are the stick.

 Regards,
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 svjart.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks
 tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/




 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com




-- 
Patrick

www.tRacePerfect.com
The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
The quickest puzzle ever!

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

According to this they had to build a new E-cat from scratch
and test it on a continent where Rossi has no access
(Antarctica for example)
Hatred poisons the intellect, Krivit is really obsessed.
Peter


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote:

 This is Krivit's reaction on the Forbes article:

 Steven B. Krivit  http://blogs.forbes.com/people/stevenbkrivit/9 hours
 ago

 This is a partially independent measurement, performed on a device that
 was built by and controlled by Rossi, and located in Rossi’s facility. The
 measurement was performed by some of the parties that have been involved in
 this scam since 2011.

 The fact that the authors of the paper have stated that they have
 performed an independent test is a significant misrepresentation and would
 qualify as research misconduct by some organizations.

 Steven B. Krivit
 Publisher and Senior Editor, New Energy Times
 Editor-in-Chief, 2011 Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia


 On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote:

 Comment on my blog to this most recent paper.
 My answers to Mary
 I wrote to Steve Krivit signalling this Report, no answer.
 I sincerely fear this very talented journalist is depresed
 obsessed, who knows...
 Peter


 On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
 orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

 From Peter:

  ... (only Mary Yugo has surfaced till now, ...

 Where? A link? What did she say?

 Someone should start a thread pointing to what the Rossi skeptics, like
 Cude, Yugo, or S. Krivit have decided to say about these latest
 developments. I haven't been able to find anything. so far.

 Related to this, browsing New Energy Time shows me nothing new. Krivit's
 site has two No Cold Fusion graphic logos plastered on the front page
 related to two topics: University LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold
 Fusion, and for Retired NRL LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold
 Fusion. It still baffles me why Krivit felt the need to go after the
 term
 CF as if it was a pinata and his words are the stick.

 Regards,
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 svjart.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks
 tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/




 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com




 --
 Patrick

 www.tRacePerfect.com
 The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
 The quickest puzzle ever!




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Chris Zell

Gasp!  Why this Cold Fusion thing is clearly some sort of conspiracy !!!

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

Chris, some 4 years ago you wrote something about Paul Feyerabend.
What would this philosopher say about the slogan of ICCF-18? I
need your help for a blog paper. if you want to help please write me in
private.
Peter


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:

 **
 Gasp!  Why this Cold Fusion thing *is clearly some sort of conspiracy
 !!!  *




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Chris Zell

If there is an afterlife, Feyerabend might be laughing at anything that 
suggests 'method' !

If I had the time and skills, I'd write a blog/book on what I call Atheist 
Theology - a deliberate oxymoron.
If science is wholly based on reductionism and materialism, then it is 
functionally atheistic.

But if that's the case, why not adopt the view that the Cosmos is a patchwork - 
and that it doesn't have to be consistent?  That it may rely on paradoxes?

Theorists seem to enjoy spinning theories that are 'elegant', 'beautiful' - is 
this view justified - or useful? The subject seemed to be close to the heart of 
Einstein, who rejected a personal Deity, but still sought order and elegance.

I'm interested in emergent phenomena - things that may not have any further 
explanation: ghosts, poltergeists, etc.  In regard to Cold Fusion ( and much 
else), I'm blown away by the fanatical insistence on theory above all reality.

To paraphrase a current slogan:  'it's here, it's queer, get used to it'

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2013-05-21 04:09, Jed Rothwell wrote:

I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. [...]


Luboš Motl seems to think otherwise, but I think he's adopted an 
excessively negative view probably due to personal bias against CF/LENR 
in general:


http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html

Tommaso Dorigo is another apparently highly regarded skeptic who isn't 
exactly convinced by the latest paper by Levi et al.:


http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/cold_fusion_real-112511

I hope you'll have fun debating with them.

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Daniel Rocha

It seems that by the table provided concerning the emissivity of metals,
dark materials are within .85 - .95% even at 1000C. So, the 10% error,
claimed by the paper, is accurate.


2013/5/21 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com

 On 2013-05-21 04:09, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. [...]


 Luboš Motl seems to think otherwise, but I think he's adopted an
 excessively negative view probably due to personal bias against CF/LENR in
 general:

 http://motls.blogspot.com/**2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-**
 impressed-by-cold-fusion.htmlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html

 Tommaso Dorigo is another apparently highly regarded skeptic who isn't
 exactly convinced by the latest paper by Levi et al.:

 http://www.science20.com/**quantum_diaries_survivor/cold_**
 fusion_real-112511http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/cold_fusion_real-112511

 I hope you'll have fun debating with them.

 Cheers,
 S.A.




-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Michele Comitini

2013/5/21 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com


 http://motls.blogspot.com/**2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-**
 impressed-by-cold-fusion.htmlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html

 Tommaso Dorigo is another apparently highly regarded skeptic who isn't
 exactly convinced by the latest paper by Levi et al.:


I don't think I am going to read the paper with more attention than I
already used with it; this is not my field of research so I would not learn
much more anyway. But I must say I will from now on follow more closely the
developing story of Rossi's E-CAT...

I see they are starting to call themselves out as being not competent in
the field. Like saying they do not know. That's a good sign.

mic

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Michele Comitini

2013/5/21 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com


 http://motls.blogspot.com/**2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-**
 impressed-by-cold-fusion.htmlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html

 Tommaso Dorigo is another apparently highly regarded skeptic who isn't
 exactly convinced by the latest paper by Levi et al.:

 The following argument is complete nonsense and stops me from reading the
full article.  No one, unless writing a book that requires complex
mathematical notation is so foul to use TeX instead of LaTeX.  If one does
it means that he spends more time studying TeX than doing his homework.
 This is a  (even if fundamental) report not a mathematical essay so using
a wysiwyg word processor suffice.

A technical or sociological detail that doesn't *prove* that the preprint
is rubbish but it's always a brightly shining and blinking red light for
me is that the physics.gen-ph preprint was delivered as PDF
onlyhttp://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf and
it wasn't written in TEX. That makes it very likely that the authors don't
actually know TEX and most of such authors don't really know physics well,
either.2013/5/21 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com

http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html

Tommaso Dorigo is another apparently highly regarded skeptic who isn't
exactly convinced by the latest paper by Levi et al.:



2013/5/21 Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com




 2013/5/21 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com


 http://motls.blogspot.com/**2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-**
 impressed-by-cold-fusion.htmlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html

 Tommaso Dorigo is another apparently highly regarded skeptic who isn't
 exactly convinced by the latest paper by Levi et al.:


 I don't think I am going to read the paper with more attention than I
 already used with it; this is not my field of research so I would not learn
 much more anyway. But I must say I will from now on follow more closely the
 developing story of Rossi's E-CAT...

 I see they are starting to call themselves out as being not competent in
 the field. Like saying they do not know. That's a good sign.

 mic

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Harry Veeder

I would shorten the title from
“Applying the Scientific Method to Understanding Anomalous Heat Effects:
Opportunities and Challenges.”

to
“Understanding Anomalous Heat Effects: Opportunities and Challenges.”

Harry


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Chris, some 4 years ago you wrote something about Paul Feyerabend.
 What would this philosopher say about the slogan of ICCF-18? I
 need your help for a blog paper. if you want to help please write me in
 private.
 Peter


 On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:

 **
 Gasp!  Why this Cold Fusion thing *is clearly some sort of conspiracy
 !!!  *




 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Harry Veeder

The original German title of Feyerabend's book is Wider den Methodenzwang.
Skizzen einer anarchistischen Erkenntnistheorie.
The standard English translation is Against Method. Outline Of An
Anarchist Theory of Knowledge

I have been told by someone who speaks German that a better translation is
Against the Dictates of Method. Outline Of An Anarchist theory
Of Knowledge


Harry


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:

 **
 If there is an afterlife, Feyerabend might be laughing at anything that
 suggests 'method' !

 If I had the time and skills, I'd write a blog/book on what I call
 Atheist Theology - a deliberate oxymoron.
 If science is wholly based on reductionism and materialism, then it is
 functionally atheistic.

 But if that's the case, why not adopt the view that the Cosmos is a
 patchwork - and that it doesn't have to be consistent?  That it may rely on
 paradoxes?

 Theorists seem to enjoy spinning theories that are 'elegant', 'beautiful'
 - is this view justified - or useful? The subject seemed to be close to the
 heart of Einstein, who rejected a personal Deity, but still sought order
 and elegance.

 I'm interested in emergent phenomena - things that may not have any
 further explanation: ghosts, poltergeists, etc.  In regard to Cold Fusion (
 and much else), I'm blown away by the fanatical insistence on theory above
 all reality.

 To paraphrase a current slogan:  'it's here, it's queer, get used to it'

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On May 21, 2013, at 5:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is a gem. 

Indeed. This paper proves that Mr. Krivit's criticism on bad calorimetry was 
utterly false but Rossi has a method to import excess electricity into device 
that does not register on measurements. I.e. he has hidden wires.

Rossi just keeps getting COP 6 with all his devices. I think that this is the 
most telling fact. In earlier demonstrations having steam there was a good 
distraction, but this demo tells directly that it is about falsified 
electricity readings.

I think that this is the reason, why science does not approve black box 
demonstrations. They are too easy to counterfeit! It is just required one David 
Copperfield for designing the good illusion.

―Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Eric Walker

On May 21, 2013, at 8:41, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: 

 I see they are starting to call themselves out as being not competent in the 
 field. Like saying they do not know. That's a good sign.

Someone should write a manual for walking back an extreme position. This move 
would feature prominently.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Eric Walker

On May 21, 2013, at 11:39, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:

 Rossi just keeps getting COP 6 with all his devices.

There were two main test runs. One achieved a COP of ~6 and the other, slightly 
longer one, of ~3.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread David L Babcock

I dispute your COP 6 point. Dave Roberson has pointed out in a series
of posts that /in a thermally controlled heat generating reaction/ the
COP of 6 is about the best you can reliably aim for. Values above that
are too near thermal runaway, and of course lower COP is less
efficient.//A telling point alright, but not for /your/ case...

Looks like you are saying that if an experiment proves CF, then it
proves fraud. Oh please, just go away.

Ol' Bab



On 5/21/2013 2:39 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
 On May 21, 2013, at 5:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is a gem. 
 Indeed. This paper proves that Mr. Krivit's criticism on bad calorimetry was 
 utterly false but Rossi has a method to import excess electricity into device 
 that does not register on measurements. I.e. he has hidden wires.

 Rossi just keeps getting COP 6 with all his devices. I think that this is the 
 most telling fact. In earlier demonstrations having steam there was a good 
 distraction, but this demo tells directly that it is about falsified 
 electricity readings.

 I think that this is the reason, why science does not approve black box 
 demonstrations. They are too easy to counterfeit! It is just required one 
 David Copperfield for designing the good illusion.

 ―Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.htmlMotl's
 critique seems to hinge on the actual output power being far less than the 
estimate.He asserts that the actual emissivity is far less than unity, and so 
it's reasonable to supposethat the actual output power is perhaps even less 
than the input power.Doesn't he have this backwards? At constant output power, 
as the emissivity reduces, output powerwill apparently reduce, meaning that 
what is measured is progressively less than what's actually output.Andrew

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Jed Rothwell

Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

*Doesn't he have this backwards?* At constant output power, as the
emissivity reduces, output power

 will apparently reduce, meaning that what is measured is progressively less 
 than what's actually output.


Yes, he has it backwards. Emissivity of 1 means the power is lowest. As
emissivity declines toward zero, power increases.

The IR camera software computes temperature based on the emissivity you
enter into the software. In the second test, they entered the actual
number, rather than 1 (worst case). They confirmed the number was correct
by comparing the IR camera software output to the actual temperature of the
reactor surface measured with a thermocouple. What's not to like? What else
would anyone have them do?

IR cameras are widely used and reliable. It isn't like these people
invented them for this purpose. Some people do invent special purpose
instruments for cold fusion. That does not usually end well.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

Motl is a pretty racist guy saying all the Italians are part of the mafia
family.
Very offended.
Giovanni



On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

 *Doesn't he have this backwards?* At constant output power, as the emissivity 
 reduces, output power

 will apparently reduce, meaning that what is measured is progressively less 
 than what's actually output.


 Yes, he has it backwards. Emissivity of 1 means the power is lowest. As
 emissivity declines toward zero, power increases.

 The IR camera software computes temperature based on the emissivity you
 enter into the software. In the second test, they entered the actual
 number, rather than 1 (worst case). They confirmed the number was correct
 by comparing the IR camera software output to the actual temperature of the
 reactor surface measured with a thermocouple. What's not to like? What else
 would anyone have them do?

 IR cameras are widely used and reliable. It isn't like these people
 invented them for this purpose. Some people do invent special purpose
 instruments for cold fusion. That does not usually end well.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Alan Fletcher

 From: Andrew andrew...@att.net
 Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:16:45 PM
 
 http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html

He also makes a big fuss about the convection being different between December 
and March.

They ran at different temperatures, and were different sizes : of course the 
convection is different.

He didn't seem to note that (except for the outward-side of the flange) the 
ecat was coated. Or that known-emissivity dots were used. Or that it was 
calibrated with a probe. Or ...


Plus a long rant about boiling points -- irrelevant to this test.

And, of course, his rant on Tex/LaTex

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

An important issue is how one could possibly hoax such measured values of input 
and output energy and power densities.

Since the supply powering the E-cat is off-limits, they measure only wall 
power. That means that one could secrete a discrete power source inside the 
supply box, and its power output would evade measurement. That's the input 
hoax.

The output hoax might consist of secreting a nuclear power source, 
appropriately shielded, inside the other inaccessible part of the apparatus; 
the E-cat itself.

So, that's the how of it, and it's qualitative.  Can we fill this in 
quantitatively?

Andrew


- Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:


Doesn't he have this backwards? At constant output power, as the emissivity 
reduces, output powerwill apparently reduce, meaning that what is measured is 
progressively less than what's actually output.

  Yes, he has it backwards. Emissivity of 1 means the power is lowest. As 
emissivity declines toward zero, power increases.


  The IR camera software computes temperature based on the emissivity you enter 
into the software. In the second test, they entered the actual number, rather 
than 1 (worst case). They confirmed the number was correct by comparing the IR 
camera software output to the actual temperature of the reactor surface 
measured with a thermocouple. What's not to like? What else would anyone have 
them do?


  IR cameras are widely used and reliable. It isn't like these people invented 
them for this purpose. Some people do invent special purpose instruments for 
cold fusion. That does not usually end well.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Jed Rothwell

Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:


 Since the supply powering the E-cat is off-limits, they measure only wall
 power. That means that one could secrete a discrete power source inside the
 supply box, and its power output would evade measurement. That's the input
 hoax.


Mary Yugu suggested this, at Forbes. Unless she or some other skeptic can
describe a method of fooling a modern, high quality power meter I think she
has no case.



 The output hoax might consist of secreting a nuclear power source,
 appropriately shielded, inside the other inaccessible part of the
 apparatus; the E-cat itself.


Bianchini's meters would have detected this. Even a Pu-238 reactor will
trigger his sensors. Pu-238 costs fantastic sums of money and civilians
such as Rossi are not allowed to buy it.

It would take about 1.4 kg of Pu-238 to produce this much heat. The U.S.
DoE is spending $1.5 billion to produce 150 kg of the stuff. That's $10
million per kg, so this would cost Rossi $14 million if he bought it on the
black market. I guess he could steal it himself from highly secure DoE bomb
factories that hold 50,000 drum cans of toxic radioactive waste. I doubt he
is capable of that.

I think we should rule out this kind of thing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any
internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with
additional power.

There's another way to perpetrate the output hoax, and that's to secrete
infrared lasers in the ceiling and heat the device up remotely.

It's alleged by Mary Yugo that the rest of the measurement instruments were
assembled by his close associate and personal friend, G. Levi. I have no way
of assessing the veracity of that statement; how does she know that?

See comments here
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas

Andrew

- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

Since the supply powering the E-cat is off-limits, they measure only wall
power. That means that one could secrete a discrete power source inside the
supply box, and its power output would evade measurement. That's the input
hoax.

Mary Yugu suggested this, at Forbes. Unless she or some other skeptic can
describe a method of fooling a modern, high quality power meter I think she has
no case.

The output hoax might consist of secreting a nuclear power source,
appropriately shielded, inside the other inaccessible part of the apparatus;
the E-cat itself.

Bianchini's meters would have detected this. Even a Pu-238 reactor will
trigger his sensors. Pu-238 costs fantastic sums of money and civilians such as
Rossi are not allowed to buy it.

It would take about 1.4 kg of Pu-238 to produce this much heat. The U.S. DoE
is spending $1.5 billion to produce 150 kg of the stuff. That's $10 million per
kg, so this would cost Rossi $14 million if he bought it on the black market. I
guess he could steal it himself from highly secure DoE bomb factories that hold
50,000 drum cans of toxic radioactive waste. I doubt he is capable of that.

I think we should rule out this kind of thing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Jed Rothwell

Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

**
 You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to
 any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with
 additional power.


What sort of internal power source?

A generator? That would noisy and obvious.

A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has
developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right.

A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800
W. They would see it.

Do you have anything else in mind?

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread DJ Cravens

If you want to go the hoax path  perhaps a ground loop with some current 
going through the metal supports, or through the gas connects.
 
I doubt it.
 
And 96 hours is fairly long.  Not as long as I would wish, but still longer 
than any chemistry I can think of.
 
That glow in the picture is fairly convensing.  I have only had one thing glow 
like that before and it did not last but 2 hours.   
 
Oh would I love to know what is in that cylinder and what kind of frequencies, 
etc were used.
 
Dennis
 

 
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:53:20 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:









You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to 
any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with 
additional power.
What sort of internal power source?
A generator? That would noisy and obvious.
A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has developed 
such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right.

A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 W. 
They would see it.
Do you have anything else in mind?
- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's small. 

A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or 
200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I 
agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call.

Andrew


- Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:



You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to 
any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with 
additional power.


  What sort of internal power source?


  A generator? That would noisy and obvious.


  A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has 
developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right.


  A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 
W. They would see it.


  Do you have anything else in mind?


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread James Bowery

The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that
the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was
measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power
analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments).
Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the
company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have
defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device,
observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency,
overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the
PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been
validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.


On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people
 think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement
 coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a
 single thing I wish they had checked but did not.

 In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any
 chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for
 output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even
 though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in
 every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase
 output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they
 know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees
 away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but
 rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if
 all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first
 set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly,
 casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into
 account.

 Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and
 others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature
 of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments
 for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically
 heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off
 in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and
 the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below
 the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be
 sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do
 to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a
 video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure there was no
 hanky-panky. They wrote:

 The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure
 the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a
 nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements
 themselves.

 They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of chemistry
 by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the first test,
 they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting point, rather
 than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the reactant. In the
 second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g but they round
 that up to 1 g.

 They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat decay
 curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat does
 not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat
 producing reaction in addition to the electric heater.

 I like it!

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post):

 I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't
know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon
(1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating
the temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives
temperature as a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the
setting of the camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating
the temperature by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then
when you use the reading of 500 K to calculate the power using
Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many areas) reintroducing the
same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but because the
temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is all right
and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower limit
of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like
convection).


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that
 the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was
 measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power
 analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments).
 Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the
 company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have
 defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device,
 observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency,
 overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the
 PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been
 validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.


 On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people
 think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement
 coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a
 single thing I wish they had checked but did not.

 In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any
 chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for
 output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even
 though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in
 every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase
 output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they
 know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees
 away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but
 rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if
 all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first
 set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly,
 casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into
 account.

 Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and
 others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature
 of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments
 for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically
 heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off
 in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and
 the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below
 the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be
 sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do
 to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a
 video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure there was no
 hanky-panky. They wrote:

 The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to
 ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a
 nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements
 themselves.

 They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of
 chemistry by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the
 first test, they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting
 point, rather than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the
 reactant. In the second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g
 but they round that up to 1 g.

 They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat
 decay curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat
 does not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat
 producing reaction in addition to the electric heater.

 I like it!

 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

Did the testing team check the electrical power provided by Rossis team?

Is ground the ground?

Are all 3 phases, the 3 phases at 120° each? (Are all that 3 phases
effectively measured by the PCE-830 ?)

Is the neutral the neutral?

What are the voltages? (Between phases, between phase and neutral, neutral
and ground)

Is the frequency at 50 Hz?

 

They dont say anything about that in the report. A highly qualified team in
a full week should have had a look at that.

  _  

From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: mardi 21 mai 2013 23:19
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 

The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that the
power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was
measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power
analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments).
Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the
company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have
defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device, observing
when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency, overlaid on
the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the PCE-830. This
assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been validated as
plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.

 

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people think
and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement coming
from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a single thing
I wish they had checked but did not.

 

In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any
chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for
output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even
though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in
every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase
output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they
know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees away
from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but rather
than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if all
surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first set of
tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, casting
a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into account.

 

Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and
others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature
of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments for
it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically
heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off in
the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and the
rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below the
power supply. You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be sure
these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do to
fool these instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a
video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure there was no
hanky-panky. They wrote:


The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure
the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a
nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements
themselves.

 

They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of chemistry
by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the first test,
they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting point, rather
than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the reactant. In the
second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g but they round that
up to 1 g.

 

They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat decay
curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat does
not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat
producing reaction in addition to the electric heater.

 

I like it!

 

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

Motl is deleting my comment, lol.
Funny
Giovanni



On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:

 My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post):

  I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't
 know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon
 (1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating
 the temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives
 temperature as a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the
 setting of the camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating
 the temperature by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then
 when you use the reading of 500 K to calculate the power using
 Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many areas) reintroducing the
 same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but because the
 temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is all right
 and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower limit
 of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like
 convection).


 On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that
 the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was
 measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power
 analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments).
 Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the
 company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have
 defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device,
 observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency,
 overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the
 PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been
 validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.


 On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people
 think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement
 coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a
 single thing I wish they had checked but did not.

 In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any
 chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for
 output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even
 though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in
 every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase
 output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they
 know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees
 away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but
 rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if
 all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first
 set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly,
 casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into
 account.

 Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics
 and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the
 nature of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no
 adjustments for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an
 electrically heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It
 is hands-off in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the
 cell, and the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which
 placed below the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the
 reaction to be sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi
 could possibly do to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with
 them. They left a video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure
 there was no hanky-panky. They wrote:

 The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to
 ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a
 nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements
 themselves.

 They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of
 chemistry by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the
 first test, they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting
 point, rather than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the
 reactant. In the second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g
 but they round that up to 1 g.

 They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat
 decay curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat
 does not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat
 producing reaction in addition to

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - just 
recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; you 
don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a jaundiced eye. Rossi is 
not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be prepared 
to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly crabby 
sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be distasteful 
to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here, and we are all 
grown-ups.

Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run across 
a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long resistors 
could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle as the lasers, 
but just a different frequency.

And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further that, 
according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of all. Just 
ask Geller and Taylor.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Andrew 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's small. 

  A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or 
200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I 
agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call.

  Andrew


  - Original Message - 
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:



  You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to 
any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with 
additional power.


What sort of internal power source?


A generator? That would noisy and obvious.


A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has 
developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right.


A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 
W. They would see it.


Do you have anything else in mind?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

I could have predicted that, Giovanni, which is why I, having raised the issue 
here, chose not to do that. He is an egomaniac, and you attempted to beard the 
lion in its own den. The man has little integrity, quite frankly. However, he 
is IMHO a quite talented physicist.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Giovanni Santostasi 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

  Motl is deleting my comment, lol. 
  Funny
  Giovanni

  On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com 
wrote:

My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post):

 I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't 
know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon (1 
being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating the 
temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives temperature as a 
proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the setting of the camera, 
let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating the temperature by a factor 
of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then when you use the reading of 500 K 
to calculate the power using Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many 
areas) reintroducing the same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but 
because the temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is 
all right and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower 
limit of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like 
convection).

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

  The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that 
the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was 
measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power analyzer 
(PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments). Detractors assert 
that as the test was conducted on the premises of the company licensing the 
technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have defrauded the investigators by 
hidden camera, or other spy device, observing when to apply a hidden AC power 
source of such high frequency, overlaid on the normal power, that it would have 
been undetectable by the PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's 
limitations has not been validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other 
authority.

  On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com 
wrote:

I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people 
think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement 
coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a single 
thing I wish they had checked but did not.

In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is 
any chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for 
output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even 
though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in every 
possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase output but 
which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they know that 
emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees away from the 
camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but rather than try to 
take that into account, they do the calculation as if all surfaces are at 0 
degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first set of tests they know that 
the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, casting a shadow and reducing 
output, but they do not try to take than into account.

Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics 
and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature 
of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments for 
it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically heated 
cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off in the 
literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and the rest at a 
distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below the power supply. 
You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be sure these 
measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do to fool these 
instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a video camera on 
the instruments at all times to ensure there was no hanky-panky. They wrote:

The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to 
ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a 
nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements themselves.

They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of 
chemistry by both the mass of the cell

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

Does even teach or do research in any public institution anymore?
Giovanni



On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

 **
 I could have predicted that, Giovanni, which is why I, having raised the
 issue here, chose not to do that. He is an egomaniac, and you attempted to
 beard the lion in its own den. The man has little integrity, quite frankly.
 However, he is IMHO a quite talented physicist.

 Andrew

 - Original Message -
 *From:* Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:48 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 Motl is deleting my comment, lol.
 Funny
 Giovanni



 On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post):

  I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't
 know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon
 (1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating
 the temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives
 temperature as a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the
 setting of the camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating
 the temperature by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then
 when you use the reading of 500 K to calculate the power using
 Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many areas) reintroducing the
 same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but because the
 temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is all right
 and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower limit
 of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like
 convection).


 On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that
 the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was
 measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power
 analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments).
 Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the
 company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have
 defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device,
 observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency,
 overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the
 PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been
 validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.


 On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people
 think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement
 coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a
 single thing I wish they had checked but did not.

 In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is
 any chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value
 for output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1
 even though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add
 in every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase
 output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they
 know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees
 away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but
 rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if
 all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first
 set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly,
 casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into
 account.

 Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics
 and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the
 nature of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no
 adjustments for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an
 electrically heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It
 is hands-off in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the
 cell, and the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which
 placed below the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the
 reaction to be sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi
 could possibly do to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with
 them. They left a video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure
 there was no hanky-panky. They wrote:

 The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to
 ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a
 nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements
 themselves.

 They estimate

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Motl is deleting my comment

That doesn't surprise me.

 

I too posted a comment. we'll see if he deletes it as well.

Here is my post:



It is patently obvious that you have NOT read the paper, or only skimmed it
due to your *belief* that this is a scam.

 

1) you state, Emissivity of nickel starts at 0.04 or 0.05 and even black
nickel has epsilon below 0.5. 

 

The emissivity of Nickel has nothing to do with it. The outer cylinder is
steel, not Nickel. So why even mention the emissivity of nickel here?  You
are either ignorant of the details of the test, or are intentionally
misleading people.

 

2) In addition, the steel cylinder is PAINTED, as was CLEARLY stated in the
paper on pg16: 

 

Another critical issue of the December test that was dealt with in this
trial is the evaluation of the emissivity of the E-Cat HT2's coat of paint.
For this purpose, self-adhesive samples were used: white disks of
approximately 2 cm in diameter (henceforth: dots) having a known emissivity
of 0.95, provided by the same firm that manufactures the IR cameras...

 

These disks are used as CONTROLS to help validate the emissivity values
used. 

I would think that a scientist would at least read the paper CAREFULLY
before attempting to criticize it.

--

 

I suppose I could have been a bit more 'diplomatic', but frankly, this
'physicist' doesn't deserve it.

He probably works at CERN.

-Mark Iverson

 

From: Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 

Motl is deleting my comment, lol. 

Funny

Giovanni

 

 

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com
wrote:

My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post):

 

 I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't
know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon
(1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating the
temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives temperature as
a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the setting of the
camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating the temperature
by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then when you use the
reading of 500 K to calculate the power using Stephan-Boltzman again (after
averaging over many areas) reintroducing the same value for epsilon=1 would
overestimate power but because the temperature was underestimated by the
same factor, everything is all right and the radiation power is estimated
correctly. It is still a lower limit of total power given that some power
would be in other forms (like convection).

 

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that the
power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was
measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power
analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments).
Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the
company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have
defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device, observing
when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency, overlaid on
the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the PCE-830. This
assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been validated as
plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.

 

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people think
and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement coming
from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a single thing
I wish they had checked but did not.

 

In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any
chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for
output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even
though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in
every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase
output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they
know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees away
from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but rather
than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if all
surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first set of
tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, casting
a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into account.

 

Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and
others have been crying out

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

Andrew I thought about the same thing about a way to send power via RF to
the device. The only issue with that is we are talking about a lot of power
and a power source would have to emit it in every direction. So much RF
power should interfere easily with the electronics and it should be
indirectly detectable. If there is a trick it is most likely in the
modulation of the input power.

Giovanni



On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:

 Does even teach or do research in any public institution anymore?
 Giovanni



 On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

 **
 I could have predicted that, Giovanni, which is why I, having raised the
 issue here, chose not to do that. He is an egomaniac, and you attempted to
 beard the lion in its own den. The man has little integrity, quite frankly.
 However, he is IMHO a quite talented physicist.

 Andrew

 - Original Message -
 *From:* Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:48 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 Motl is deleting my comment, lol.
 Funny
 Giovanni



 On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post):

  I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't
 know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon
 (1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating
 the temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives
 temperature as a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the
 setting of the camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating
 the temperature by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then
 when you use the reading of 500 K to calculate the power using
 Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many areas) reintroducing the
 same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but because the
 temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is all right
 and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower limit
 of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like
 convection).


 On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

 The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is
 that the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it
 was measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power
 analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments).
 Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the
 company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have
 defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device,
 observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency,
 overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the
 PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been
 validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.


 On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people
 think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a 
 complement
 coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a
 single thing I wish they had checked but did not.

 In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is
 any chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible 
 value
 for output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1
 even though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The 
 add
 in every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase
 output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they
 know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees
 away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but
 rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if
 all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first
 set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly,
 casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than 
 into
 account.

 Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics
 and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the
 nature of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no
 adjustments for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an
 electrically heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It
 is hands-off in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching 
 the
 cell, and the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which
 placed below the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the
 reaction

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem