Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:57 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

>  There is direct evidence to support my side whereas there is nothing but
> speculation to support yours.  Not one piece of evidence has been shown
> that Rossi or the scientists engaged in a scam.
>

There is also no direct evidence of trickery in the cheese video, but that
doesn't mean I believe in cheese power.

The evidence for trickery is that I am nearly certain that cheese does not
resonate at 60 Hz, and I am similarly nearly certain that cold fusion does
not provide power.

I could easily design an experiment to foil the cheese power, and likewise
skeptics could easily design an experiment that would foil 600W from a gram
of nickel, if they were allowed to, or to satisfy themselves that it does.

Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  Cude wrote:
>
>. . . some kind of deception is far more likely than a revolution in
> physics.
>
>
> This is the heart of Cude's arguments,
>

On the ecat, yes. The claims here are much larger than most of the cold
fusion claims, and there is no way for them to be checked.


On other cold fusion topics though, I don't always argue deception. In the
ones where the information is disclosed, failure to replicate is the
argument. And yes, I know there's hundreds of claims of positive results,
but there are no interlab replicable experiments according to McKubre, and
no quantitatively replicable experiments at all. The vast majority are a
watt or less of excess power, and in the last decade, very few of even
those in the refereed literature. That all fits pathological science much
better than real science. But we've covered this ground already.

If Rossi was the only person making these claims that might be true, but it
> is a fact that hundreds of other scientists have seen these effects
> thousands of times.
>

Already you're falling back on those old lame results. The fact that none
of them stand out (as you put it) makes them look pathological, and Rossi's
results that can't be checked don't help. In fact the loyal following that
cold fusion commands makes it fertile ground for frauds.

>
>

Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:51 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

>  Skepticism is OK, but I suggest you plow through 24 years of research
> before you mock "true believers".
>
>
>
I've read a lot of the literature, and all the ones considered to be the
best, and true believers still deserve to be mocked.

Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Randy wuller  wrote:

> **
> Joshua:
>
> Don't you find the following scenario just a little disconcerting.
>
> For 24 years the scientific community has been certain (to the point of
> claiming that "Cold Fusion" was pseudoscience" that the anomalous heat
> found by P & F was delusion.  They now have tests clearly demonstrating the
> effect which they can only explain away by proposing acts of fraud.
>

What they have is an untestable claim from a person with a controversial
past who stands to make money by convincing a few people, and a few
scientists who could be either complicit or fooled.

And it's a claim that could, if true, be made in a vastly more convincing
way, but isn't.


And before they should consider them in any way you feel it is necessary
> for the entrepreneur (clearly not a scientists) to demonstrate it in public
> so that there can be NO doubt.
>
>

I am quite convinced that that is what would happen if he had something,
whether it's necessary or not. If that doesn't happen, I consider the
likelihood of his claims to be real to be vanishingly small. I suspect
that's a pretty common view. I suspect that any claim of MJ/g  or higher
energy density in a small-scale setup that needs to be plugged in to run is
almost certainly bogus. Cut the umbilical cord, and they'll get attention.



> How foolish do you want the world's scientific community to look?
> Wouldn't it be better for the scientific community to get on top of it now
> and either help prove it to the world or expose the fraud?
>
>

No. If the likelihood of it being real is held to be vanishingly small,
then they should do nothing. How do they get on top of it anyway? Rossi
doesn't let his ecats out of his sight according to one of the interviews.


I find your point of view incomprehensible.
>
>
>
Well, that's mutual.

Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[David Roberson]

I guess we are on opposite sides of the fence Josh.  There is direct evidence 
to support my side whereas there is nothing but speculation to support yours.  
Not one piece of evidence has been shown that Rossi or the scientists engaged 
in a scam.  Show us some of this and we can put a check mark on your side of 
the ledger.

If you notice, every one of the objections that your and your fellow skeptics 
has put forth is being proven wrong.  A case in point is the DC power supply 
hidden within the plant.  Eventually they will all fall in like manner.

Sure, I want LENR to be real and I assume you do as well.  You make a game out 
of being a skeptic regarding LENR while I put my efforts into helping it along. 
  Try to be honest with your postings and don't claim true what you know is 
false just to be on the skeptic list of good behavior.  So far I have seen you 
cross that line several times.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 2:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation 
of radiated power



On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:05 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


You are letting your emotions influence your thinking.   Try to keep an open 
mind for a change 



No, that's you. Cold fusion would benefit everyone, so emotionally I'd like it 
to be true, but I'm rational.


You, on the other hand, are completely governed by your deep desire for cold 
fusion to be real, that you can't think straight.  Try to keep an open mind for 
a change, and realize that cold fusion is almost certainly bogus.


 

Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[Jed Rothwell]

Cude wrote:

. . . some kind of deception is far more likely than a revolution in 
physics.


This is the heart of Cude's arguments, and also Park's. Deception is 
more likely than revolution. If Rossi was the only person making these 
claims that might be true, but it is a fact that hundreds of other 
scientists have seen these effects thousands of times. It is highly 
irrational for Cude et al. to believe that all of these people is 
engaged in deception, or that they are all incompetent. Science would 
not work if that could happen.


I believe that Cude et al. are sincere. They honestly do believe that 
Rossi and every other cold fusion researcher is either a liar, a 
criminal or a lunatic, as Robert Park says. I do not suppose they 
secretly believe the results are real and they are posting 
disinformation on behalf of the oil industry. I do not believe in 
conspiracies.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[ChemE Stewart]

Actually I believe it refers to the Judgers of Truth and Knowledge like it
reads.

I have followed the Rossi saga for two years as well as DGT and many other
research articles and papers.  I am convinced there is anomalous heat there
and possibly endothermic vacuum at times.  Many of the Scientists are very
reputable that have researched this. Skepticism is OK, but I suggest you
plow through 24 years of research before you mock "true believers".

I can be much more fun to search than destroy, as you just might find
something in your search.  Just my opinion

Stewart




On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
>> I think I posted this previously, but Joshua appears to be the chosen
>> one...
>>
>> “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
>> is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” Albert Einstein
>>
>>
>>
> I believe that describes true believers truly.
>
> Keep in mind that my patronizing statement was meant to mock the parallel
> statement made first by a true believer.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[Randy wuller]

Joshua:

Don't you find the following scenario just a little disconcerting.

For 24 years the scientific community has been certain (to the point of 
claiming that "Cold Fusion" was pseudoscience" that the anomalous heat found by 
P & F was delusion.  They now have tests clearly demonstrating the effect which 
they can only explain away by proposing acts of fraud.  And before they should 
consider them in any way you feel it is necessary for the entrepreneur (clearly 
not a scientists) to demonstrate it in public so that there can be NO doubt.

How foolish do you want the world's scientific community to look?  Wouldn't it 
be better for the scientific community to get on top of it now and either help 
prove it to the world or expose the fraud?

I find your point of view incomprehensible.

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Joshua Cude 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported 
underestimation of radiated power


  On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:05 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

You are letting your emotions influence your thinking.   Try to keep an 
open mind for a change 


  No, that's you. Cold fusion would benefit everyone, so emotionally I'd like 
it to be true, but I'm rational.


  You, on the other hand, are completely governed by your deep desire for cold 
fusion to be real, that you can't think straight.  Try to keep an open mind for 
a change, and realize that cold fusion is almost certainly bogus.



  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.2242 / Virus Database: 3184/5863 - Release Date: 05/28/13

Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> I think I posted this previously, but Joshua appears to be the chosen
> one...
>
> “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is
> shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” Albert Einstein
>
>
>
I believe that describes true believers truly.

Keep in mind that my patronizing statement was meant to mock the parallel
statement made first by a true believer.

Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[ChemE Stewart]

I think I posted this previously, but Joshua appears to be the chosen one...

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is
shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” Albert Einstein

Stewart


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:05 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> You are letting your emotions influence your thinking.   Try to keep an
>> open mind for a change
>>
>
> No, that's you. Cold fusion would benefit everyone, so emotionally I'd
> like it to be true, but I'm rational.
>
> You, on the other hand, are completely governed by your deep desire for
> cold fusion to be real, that you can't think straight.  Try to keep an open
> mind for a change, and realize that cold fusion is almost certainly bogus.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:05 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> You are letting your emotions influence your thinking.   Try to keep an
> open mind for a change
>

No, that's you. Cold fusion would benefit everyone, so emotionally I'd like
it to be true, but I'm rational.

You, on the other hand, are completely governed by your deep desire for
cold fusion to be real, that you can't think straight.  Try to keep an open
mind for a change, and realize that cold fusion is almost certainly bogus.

Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[David Roberson]

You are letting your emotions influence your thinking.   Try to keep an open 
mind for a change and let yourself accept that LENR might actually be real.  If 
the evidence points in that direction, then follow it instead of imagining big 
monsters hiding under your bed.

Dave 

-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 1:54 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation 
of radiated power



On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:




So, we are left with

a) Fraud by Rossi and/or those in cahoots with him

b) DC




Those could be the same, but DC is too specific. The point is that the input 
was inadequately measured, and given the very restricted  frequency response of 
the PCE830, the possibility of sneaking extra power in has not been adequately 
excluded, as the cheese videos show.



And even that's just a possibility raised for academic purposes. The main thing 
is that this can not be checked, and the experiment is such an unlikely way to 
demonstrate a real COP of 3, that some kind of deception is far more likely 
than a revolution in physics. And I think it will be largely ignored until 
there is a far more open and unambiguous demo, or reasonably unrestricted 
access to an ecat (not to the inside) so the claims can be checked.

Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

>
> So, we are left with
>
> a) Fraud by Rossi and/or those in cahoots with him
>
> b) DC
>
>
Those could be the same, but DC is too specific. The point is that the
input was inadequately measured, and given the very restricted  frequency
response of the PCE830, the possibility of sneaking extra power in has not
been adequately excluded, as the cheese videos show.

And even that's just a possibility raised for academic purposes. The main
thing is that this can not be checked, and the experiment is such an
unlikely way to demonstrate a real COP of 3, that some kind of deception is
far more likely than a revolution in physics. And I think it will be
largely ignored until there is a far more open and unambiguous demo, or
reasonably unrestricted access to an ecat (not to the inside) so the claims
can be checked.

Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[James Bowery]

With conspiracy theories* the plausibility goes down as the number of
participants goes up.  Since Levi alone is responsible for the
instrumentation -- at least from my recollection of some of the statements
-- and Levi has long been associated with Rossi, a Levi-Rossi conspiracy is
where the skeptical theorizing should concentrate.  Jed Rothwell makes a
good case that Rossi's financial behavior doesn't seem very consistent with
the kind of con game being theorized.  Moreover, the continual harping on
Rossi's "conviction" (which was overturned in any case) by an Italian court
(the Italian government not known for being free of corruption) is a poor
foundation for conspiracy theorizing unless one is going to try to impute
to Rossi and Levi the "corrupt Italian" ethnic profile.  This must be
compared with the fact that the Italian government did _not_ go after cold
fusion researchers in the pathological manner of other Western countries --
indicating that, if anything, those other countries were more corrupt than
Italy -- at least when it comes to the politics of science.

*What many call "conspiracy theorizing" is, in fact, merely theorizing
about institutional incompetence and/or shared interests held by large
numbers of people with the resulting incentives creating correlated action.
 Typically those using "conspiracy theorizing" in this manner are those who
are invested in the incompetent institutions and/or those with the
interests driving their pathological incentives.


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> > From: "Joshua Cude" 
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:47:48 AM
>
> > I think Pekka is right. If the camera samples above the peak
> > wavelength, and it is a grey body, then an emissivity of 1 seems to
> > be always conservative.
> ...
>
> > So, the only way the camera could give an overestimate of the power
> > is if the emissivity has some kind of strong wavelength dependence,
> > and I rather doubt a material exists that would give a factor of 3
> > or more error.
> >
> >
> > So, the upshot is that I can't explain the power gain with an error
> > in emissivity in either experiment. I conceded as much for the March
> > experiment from the beginning, where they measured the emissivity,
> > and that is presumably the more significant run anyway.
>
> So, we are left with
>
> a) Fraud by Rossi and/or those in cahoots with him
>
> b) DC
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/discovery-article-pours-doubt-on-rossis-cold-fusion/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=discovery-article-pours-doubt-on-rossis-cold-fusion
>
> May 28, 2013 at 2:26 AM
> <
> http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/05/ethics-of-e-cat.html?showComment=1369733204626#c7691737630487135094
> >
>
>
> Earlier statement :
>
> Prof. Essén wrote this paragraph as a comment to this piece of interview
> that appeared on http://www.pureenergyblog.com/?p=1232 :
>
> 
> Interviewer: Have you tried to test the output of the power supply to
> exclude that also a DC current is supplied to the device, which clamp
> amperometers could not detect?
>
> Prof. Essén: No, we did not think of that. The power came from a normal
> wall socket and there did not seem to be any reason to suspect that it was
> manipulated in some special way. Now that the point is raised we can check
> this in future tests.
> 
>
> Later statement (from Cassandra)
>
> The only response for which Prof. Essén authorises publication is the
> following:
>
> "In the intervju I answered that there was no direct measurement of dc
> (since the clamps could not detec such). This was a bit hasty. In future I
> will not answer such technical questions without conferring with all
> coautors. After analysing what we checked and measured (which were many
> more variables that those from the clamps) we can definitely exclude
> dc-current. (This is what comes from being nice to journalists.)"
>
> [ cleaned up on another blog : ]
>
> “In the interview I answered that there was no direct measurement of dc
> (since the clamps could not detect such). This was a bit hasty. In future I
> will not answer such technical questions without conferring with all
> coauthors. After analysing what we checked and measured (which were many
> more variables that those from the clamps) we can definitely exclude
> dc-current. (This is what comes from being nice to journalists.)”
>
> I suspect that there may be a revised version of the paper with an
> analysis of this.
>
> So we are left with :
>
> a) The input AND output measurements are valid
> b) It's all a fraud by Rossi, Levi 
>
> The latter, of course, is outside of science, and in the field of
> conspiracy theorists.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Joshua Cude" 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:47:48 AM
 
> I think Pekka is right. If the camera samples above the peak
> wavelength, and it is a grey body, then an emissivity of 1 seems to
> be always conservative.
...

> So, the only way the camera could give an overestimate of the power
> is if the emissivity has some kind of strong wavelength dependence,
> and I rather doubt a material exists that would give a factor of 3
> or more error.
> 
> 
> So, the upshot is that I can't explain the power gain with an error
> in emissivity in either experiment. I conceded as much for the March
> experiment from the beginning, where they measured the emissivity,
> and that is presumably the more significant run anyway.

So, we are left with 

a) Fraud by Rossi and/or those in cahoots with him

b) DC
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/discovery-article-pours-doubt-on-rossis-cold-fusion/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=discovery-article-pours-doubt-on-rossis-cold-fusion

May 28, 2013 at 2:26 AM



Earlier statement :

Prof. Essén wrote this paragraph as a comment to this piece of interview that 
appeared on http://www.pureenergyblog.com/?p=1232 :


Interviewer: Have you tried to test the output of the power supply to exclude 
that also a DC current is supplied to the device, which clamp amperometers 
could not detect?

Prof. Essén: No, we did not think of that. The power came from a normal wall 
socket and there did not seem to be any reason to suspect that it was 
manipulated in some special way. Now that the point is raised we can check this 
in future tests.


Later statement (from Cassandra)

The only response for which Prof. Essén authorises publication is the following:

"In the intervju I answered that there was no direct measurement of dc (since 
the clamps could not detec such). This was a bit hasty. In future I will not 
answer such technical questions without conferring with all coautors. After 
analysing what we checked and measured (which were many more variables that 
those from the clamps) we can definitely exclude dc-current. (This is what 
comes from being nice to journalists.)"

[ cleaned up on another blog : ]

“In the interview I answered that there was no direct measurement of dc (since 
the clamps could not detect such). This was a bit hasty. In future I will not 
answer such technical questions without conferring with all coauthors. After 
analysing what we checked and measured (which were many more variables that 
those from the clamps) we can definitely exclude dc-current. (This is what 
comes from being nice to journalists.)”

I suspect that there may be a revised version of the paper with an analysis of 
this.

So we are left with :

a) The input AND output measurements are valid
b) It's all a fraud by Rossi, Levi  

The latter, of course, is outside of science, and in the field of conspiracy 
theorists.

Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[Joshua Cude]

I think Pekka is right. If the camera samples above the peak wavelength,
and it is a grey body, then an emissivity of 1 seems to be always
conservative.

I'm still not entirely sure how the effective exponent works in the
instrument software, but I did a calculation similar to Pekka's, if a
little simpler: For a given temperature, I found the value of the Planck
curve at the camera sensitivity (say 10 µm). Then I found the temperature
needed to give the same value from a Planck curve scaled by an emissivity.
Finally, I calculated the power using the new temperature and the same
emissivity.

The temperature is always higher for a lower emissivity as expected. The
effect of the emissivity compensates somewhat in the power calculation, but
like Pekka, I also found the net effect is positive in all the cases I
tried. It's obvious from the curve that the temperature should be higher,
but it's not obvious to me that the reduced power from smaller emissivity
would never compensate, but that appears to be the case if the peak
wavelength is shorter than the sampling wavelength, which is the case in
these experiments. I also tried the calculation for much lower values of
emissivity, and the calculated power was higher in every case.

As I said, the actual effect for all emissivities could be determined with
a bit of effort, and the results do favor the authors. But it's not as
simple as arguing the calculated temperature is higher if the emissivity is
lower as some (including the authors) did, nor as simple as arguing the
calculated power is lower because of lower emissivity, as others did. The
two effects compete, and it's the net effect that's important.

So, the only way the camera could give an overestimate of the power is if
the emissivity has some kind of strong wavelength dependence, and I rather
doubt a material exists that would give a factor of 3 or more error.

So, the upshot is that I can't explain the power gain with an error in
emissivity in either experiment. I conceded as much for the March
experiment from the beginning, where they measured the emissivity, and that
is presumably the more significant run anyway. Even so, I would not be
satisfied with this kind of indirect and complex route to a power
calculation when flow calorimetry would be far more direct and accurate,
even if experimentally more difficult. Still, you can buy tube furnaces
with the insulation and cooling lines already set up, and it would not be
difficult to adapt such a thing for Rossi's purposes. A big advantage of
flow calorimetry is that you can integrate the heat in a very visual kind
of way, by collecting, or even circulating the cooling water, thereby
raising the temperature of a known volume of water in a 1000 L tub, say.

[Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[Harry Veeder]

 From a comment thread on e-catworld:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/rossi-no-longer-controls-e-cat-business/

Pekka Janhunen on May 27, 2013 at 8:01 pm

Off-topic for the thread: the question whether assuming emissivity equal to
one indeed yields to underestimation of the radiated power. Now I think
yes, but to deduce it one has to know something about the Optris PI-160
thermal camera. The specs of the camera say that its wavelength range is
7.5-13 microns. For relevant HotCat temperatures, this is on the long
wavelength side of the Planck emission function (i.e. to the right from the
peak in wavelength space). If the true emissivity is below unity, say 0.8,
and one inputs 1.0 for the camera (as the testers did), the camera
basically integrates the emission in its wavelength band and then finds a
source temperature which, when multiplied by the assumed emissivity 1.0,
yields the same integral. Because the real emissivity is smaller, this
yields an underestimation of the temperature, as the testers said. The
total radiative emission (integral of Planck function over all wavelengths)
is emissivity*sigma*T^4. The real emissivity is less than unity which tends
to make the true emitted power smaller than the estimated one. But the real
temperature is higher which causes a reverse effect. Which effect wins is
not immediately clear. I tested it numerically for temperatures 300-400 C
used in the test (i.e. I numerically integrated the Planck function in the
range 7.5-13 um and then adjusted the source temperature until it matches
the real one; the full story is a bit more complicated but this is the
general idea). It is indeed so that with these numbers, the net effect is
underestimation of the emitted power.

The result is understandable, I think, in the following way. If the camera
measures an integral of the emission function above the peak,
underestimation of temperature moves the real Planck function towards
shorter wavelengths i.e. further away from the camera’s wavelength range.
Thus the camera sees a smaller fraction of the radiated infrared energy
than it thinks based on its own idea of the source temperature which is
based on assuming epsilon=1 instead of the correct value. The numerical
integration also shows that if the camera’s wavelength range would be below
the peak, overestimation of the emitted power would result. But that regime
is never entered in this case because it would correspond to only room
temperature or such.

If the true epsilon is 0.8 and true temperature 400 C, I got an
underestimation factor of 0.889 for the emitted power. I.e., the
underestimation is not likely to be large, but it is anyway of the correct
sign as the testers asserted.