Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: They weighed it before the warm-up period. But heating a brick eCat into 100°C takes about 20 MJ energy. And as there was additional heat loss due to poor insulation some 300-700 watts and also substantial water leak. These basic heat losses that never even got to the heat exchanger took some 27-37 MJ energy where as input was only 32 MJ. Therefore you need to find more clever solutions for an alleged fraud. In additional to that cool water inflow rate was at least 10 kg/h. Therefore it is true that there are high uncertainties, but most of the uncertainties point into direction that there was more heat produced, than what was observed. Reasonable estimation for total heat production was 100-180 MJ. There are indeed huge error margins, but not in the lower end. I don't agree there is no uncertainty at the low end. Even for 10 kg/h heated to boiling, and 300 W loss, that's still only 1.5 kW, which over 3.5 hours is about 20 MJ; less than the total energy input. And there is probably some heat produced by chemical reactions between hydrogen and nickel. This device is 3 times heavier than the previous ecat, and produces 3 times less claimed energy. Order of magnitude variations in power density seem a little odd in a ready-for-market technology. I think the point that it's possible to quibble about these numbers, and that we even have to think about heat losses, is the real problem. The claimed energy density is so dramatically higher than anything possible by either chemical reactions or energy storage, that it should not be unreasonable to expect the output energy to exceed the total mass of the device in chemical energy by a comfortable margin, but Rossi hardly exceeds 1 % of that. It would be a little like someone claiming to be superhuman because he can lift 1000 tons, but to demonstrate his superhumanness, lifts only a few hundred pounds. When it's pointed out that ordinary humans can lift a few hundred pounds, he says: not without training...
RE: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
Hear, hear! Jed: I have had it with Mary Yugo. I think Mary Yugo is a good addition to this list. Mary Yugo's skepticism is better than excusing Rossi's odd behaviour on the grounds that he must be an eccentric genius. We hear, hear what we want to believe in. It would appear that certain Vort skeptics have acquired an adamant cheer leader to bolster their POV that Rossi is a scamster. Well, good for them. As for me, after reading a string responses from Mary over this past weekend I began to realize that I wasn't learning anything new. Having to wade through most of Mary's responses started becoming a distraction to my own efforts of trying to discern what was going on with the Rossi affair. The vast majority of what I was reading from Mary's posts seemed to be nothing more than an opinion of an adamant skeptic, and not a terribly informed one at that. It was the part about not being terribly informed, and apparently not really wanting to do anything about being uninformed that cinched it for me. My time is too short to waste it on reading a huge vort bandwidth stuffed with uninformed skepticism. I'm sure certain skeptics will disagree - perhaps adamantly so. Some may even accuse me of showing my own personal brand of prejudice. That is their prerogative to express. As for me, after spending more time that I really should have trying to help out Krivit, and now seeing Krivit's own prejudice being used by Mary in precisely the way that Krivit hoped it would... It's time to add another email address to my filter list. Mary, you might want to contact Mr. Krvit and offer your services as a NET Board of Director member. Krivit is probably still looking for a good few men and women, especially those that are more simpatico to his POV. I'm positively sure he is aware of you and your posts. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
I am impressed that so many Vorts support Mary Yugo's participation... that's proof of balanced, fairly civil discussion... diarrhea or constipation of thought, that is the question... ? On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:56 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Hear, hear! Jed: I have had it with Mary Yugo. I think Mary Yugo is a good addition to this list. Mary Yugo's skepticism is better than excusing Rossi's odd behaviour on the grounds that he must be an eccentric genius. We hear, hear what we want to believe in. It would appear that certain Vort skeptics have acquired an adamant cheer leader to bolster their POV that Rossi is a scamster. Well, good for them. As for me, after reading a string responses from Mary over this past weekend I began to realize that I wasn't learning anything new. Having to wade through most of Mary's responses started becoming a distraction to my own efforts of trying to discern what was going on with the Rossi affair. The vast majority of what I was reading from Mary's posts seemed to be nothing more than an opinion of an adamant skeptic, and not a terribly informed one at that. It was the part about not being terribly informed, and apparently not really wanting to do anything about being uninformed that cinched it for me. My time is too short to waste it on reading a huge vort bandwidth stuffed with uninformed skepticism. I'm sure certain skeptics will disagree - perhaps adamantly so. Some may even accuse me of showing my own personal brand of prejudice. That is their prerogative to express. As for me, after spending more time that I really should have trying to help out Krivit, and now seeing Krivit's own prejudice being used by Mary in precisely the way that Krivit hoped it would... It's time to add another email address to my filter list. Mary, you might want to contact Mr. Krvit and offer your services as a NET Board of Director member. Krivit is probably still looking for a good few men and women, especially those that are more simpatico to his POV. I'm positively sure he is aware of you and your posts. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ ...Brian Ahern, a researcher with expertise in LENR, wrote to *New Energy Times* with a concise summary of the recent Oct. 28 Rossi demo: “Rossi has been clever enough to change the trick on each successive demo. Using a secret customer is a great way to allow him to fulfill his promise to demo the 1 MW unit in October. He then evaded conducting the demo transparently by saying that the customer demanded the demo conditions. The “customer’ signed off when Rossi gave him the wink and he shut things down without any measurements by anyone except the shill. “Occam’s Razor, on the other hand, says that 12 inconclusive demos in succession are not random. It is well planned and orchestrated. He has used the journalists like a team of puppets.”...
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
This thread is full of strawman arguments. No one is defending Rossi's behavior, least of all me. We are saying: His claims can be evaluated independently of his behavior, based strictly on the laws of physics. This is true even though his experimental techniques are sloppy. His business decisions are his business, not anyone else's. His business decisions have nothing to do with his claims. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
Granted that Rossi is producing anomalous heat, nevertheless absolutely everything else about this story stinks to high heaven. The conundrum which nobody can decipher is why someone with a real effect, or a scammer, would operate in such a bizarre manner. The only conclusion left is that the effect is real and Rossi is insane. Sent from my iPhone. On Nov 14, 2011, at 10:05, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This thread is full of strawman arguments. No one is defending Rossi's behavior, least of all me. We are saying: His claims can be evaluated independently of his behavior, based strictly on the laws of physics. This is true even though his experimental techniques are sloppy. His business decisions are his business, not anyone else's. His business decisions have nothing to do with his claims. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: Granted that Rossi is producing anomalous heat, nevertheless absolutely everything else about this story stinks to high heaven. Except the fundamental physics, and the fact that a 30 L poorly insulated vessel of water cannot stay at boiling temperature for 4 hours. That does not stink to high heaven. Since this is about science, that is also the only thing that matters. The conundrum which nobody can decipher is why someone with a real effect, or a scammer, would operate in such a bizarre manner. That is not a conundrum. It is completely irrelevant. People are complicated and unpredictable. They act in all kinds of ways, for countless reasons. Sometimes the reasons are inexplicable. Sometimes there is no reason; the person is crazy. You can never understand human behavior. You cannot predict it. You can, however, understand what happens to 30 L of hot water over 4 hours, so I suggest you concentrate on that. The other thing to remember about people is that a personality trait is not one thing, with a single value applicable in all situations. People are more complicated than that. A professor might cheat on his wife and his taxes, betray his friends, and plagiarize ideas, yet with it comes to experimental results he may be scrupulously honest. Rossi can be devious, but I have not seen *any* evidence that he lies about engineering data. To take a much darker example, I knew men who had been in WWII, from the U.S., Germany and Japan. When I knew them, they were kindly middle-aged or elderly guys of my father's generation. A U-boat officer; pilots in the U.S. and Japanese navies and so on. They were kind to small children, upstanding, law abiding members of the community, etc., etc. Yet what they did in the war was an atrocity, even when it was necessary and morally justified. Some were forced by circumstances. Others admitted they enjoyed causing havoc and killing people. Sinking British ships, shooting Zero fighter out of the sky and dropping bombs can be fun. For many people it was the high point of their lives. These were not evil people. They were primates, and primates often enjoy mayhem. The only conclusion left is that the effect is real and Rossi is insane. He does not seem insane to me. I have met many others like him. He is suffering from the Inventor's Disease, but not as badly as some. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
On Nov 14, 2011, at 20:12, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi can be devious, but I have not seen any evidence that he lies about engineering data. Except that you wrote Mind you, the list of his statements we compiled includes some diametrically opposite assertions: http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi%27s_Hints Now, if he wants to maintain secrecy, a reasonable goal, why incessantly answer blog questions to the point where misdirection is then needed? The only conclusion left is that the effect is real and Rossi is insane. He does not seem insane to me. I have met many others like him. He is suffering from the Inventor's Disease, but not as badly as some. - Jed You have said his psychology is completely irrelevant, but his behavior is not consistent with that of a pure scientist in pursuit of accuracy, a businessman maximizing his return, a con man maximizing his take, a secretive engineer, a publicity whore seeking attention. or anything. There is no story that can explain his random contradictory behavior, which is why the theories still fly around.
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Except the fundamental physics, and the fact that a 30 L poorly insulated vessel of water cannot stay at boiling temperature for 4 hours. It most certainly can, if it weighs 100 kg, and consists in part of fire brick, or something similar, and starts out at 500 or 600 C or hotter, or better, contains a metal like lead that starts out molten, or if it contains a small amount of liquid fuel and an oxygen candle. There is certainly no fundamental physics than says a 100 kg device can't stay hot for 4 hours. You can buy a 10 kg device at a camping store that can do it. The only thing that Rossi (or anyone else) can't explain with fundamental physics is how he can produce several kW of heat from nuclear reactions at ordinary temperatures with non-radioactive material, without producing radiation or any unusual isotopes. There's your violation of fundamental physics.
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi can be devious, but I have not seen *any* evidence that he lies about engineering data. Except that you wrote Mind you, the list of his statements we compiled includes some diametrically opposite assertions: http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi%27s_Hints As I explained, I think those are the results of Rossi changing his mind, or getting new data, or he was confused. I do not think those are lies. This is very important. Fundamental, cutting edge research into unknown phenomena is always filled with confusion. It is always a mixture of truth and error. As Stan Pons says, if we are half-right we are doing well. Rossi is good at what he does partly because his mind is flexible and he is willing to change it easily and often. Mental flexibility and even the ability to entertain two opposite ideas at the same time are valuable skills for someone in his line of work. You have said his psychology is completely irrelevant, but his behavior is not consistent with that of a pure scientist in pursuit of accuracy, a businessman maximizing his return, a con man maximizing his take, a secretive engineer . . . Who can say what is consistent or normal about any of those groups? I know dozens of scientists, including many distinguished ones such as Fleischmann, Bockris, Arata and Hagestein. They are all different. What motivates them is different in every case. Their outlooks and politics and much else is as different as any other group of people such as doctors, farmers or programmers. What you do for a living does tend to shape your views, but people are not automatons. , a publicity whore seeking attention. or anything. There is no story that can explain his random contradictory behavior, which is why the theories still fly around. On the contrary, it looks similar to other lone inventors I have known. I suppose that explains it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Except the fundamental physics, and the fact that a 30 L poorly insulated vessel of water cannot stay at boiling temperature for 4 hours. It most certainly can, if it weighs 100 kg, and consists in part of fire brick, or something similar, and starts out at 500 or 600 C or hotter . . . If it had started out at that temperature, when the observers picked it up to weight it, they would have felt the heat. No matter how good the insulation is, this cannot be hidden. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
Granted that Rossi is producing anomalous heat, nevertheless absolutely everything else about this story stinks to high heaven. The conundrum which nobody can decipher is why someone with a real effect, or a scammer, would operate in such a bizarre manner. The only conclusion left is that the effect is real and Rossi is insane. That may be but there is as yet no reason to concede anomalous heat if by anomalous you mean of nuclear reaction origin. As to Rossi's sanity, I'm not a psychiatrist, but I see no clear evidence of insanity. He may be hiding it well or he may be a sociopath or, less likely, he may be for real and just very very weird. I guess we'll find which it is eventually.
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
Except the fundamental physics, and the fact that a 30 L poorly insulated vessel of water cannot stay at boiling temperature for 4 hours. I disagree that the large E-cat module was ever properly inspected. For sure, nobody saw what was inside the finned rectangular portion in the interior. That was never opened. And it was quite voluminous. Saying all there was in there was a core (3 cores) and lots of water is purely guessing. We just don't know anything about how that things was constructed and what it contained.
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Except the fundamental physics, and the fact that a 30 L poorly insulated vessel of water cannot stay at boiling temperature for 4 hours. It most certainly can, if it weighs 100 kg, and consists in part of fire brick, or something similar, and starts out at 500 or 600 C or hotter . . . If it had started out at that temperature, when the observers picked it up to weight it, they would have felt the heat. No matter how good the insulation is, this cannot be hidden. They weighed it before the warm-up period.
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: They weighed it before the warm-up period. But heating a brick eCat into 100°C takes about 20 MJ energy. And as there was additional heat loss due to poor insulation some 300-700 watts and also substantial water leak. These basic heat losses that never even got to the heat exchanger took some 27-37 MJ energy where as input was only 32 MJ. Therefore you need to find more clever solutions for an alleged fraud. In additional to that cool water inflow rate was at least 10 kg/h. Therefore it is true that there are high uncertainties, but most of the uncertainties point into direction that there was more heat produced, than what was observed. Reasonable estimation for total heat production was 100-180 MJ. There are indeed huge error margins, but not in the lower end. —Jouni Ps. good to hear you back.
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
I believe that the water leaks were at the top seal, and would only have come into play when the E-Cat was effectively overflowing. They would not contribute to net energy loss during the proposed heat storage Also, the only measured primary flow before the rate was increased (for quenching) was .91 g/sec, or 3.3 kg/hr. Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: They weighed it before the warm-up period. But heating a brick eCat into 100°C takes about 20 MJ energy. And as there was additional heat loss due to poor insulation some 300-700 watts and also substantial water leak. These basic heat losses that never even got to the heat exchanger took some 27-37 MJ energy where as input was only 32 MJ. Therefore you need to find more clever solutions for an alleged fraud. In additional to that cool water inflow rate was at least 10 kg/h. Therefore it is true that there are high uncertainties, but most of the uncertainties point into direction that there was more heat produced, than what was observed. Reasonable estimation for total heat production was 100-180 MJ. There are indeed huge error margins, but not in the lower end. —Jouni Ps. good to hear you back.
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
I perfectly agree with you and consider that what Mary Yugo says is a necessary and useful part of the broad spectrum of opinions re Rossi. Being a convinced feminist, I think ladies can be rational and very smart and good scientists technologists so I will abstain from asking her unpolitely if she is not actually my old friend Guy Moray from Aberdeen. Peter On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: I have had it with Mary Yugo. I think Mary Yugo is a good addition to this list. Mary Yugo's skepticism is better than excusing Rossi's odd behaviour on the grounds that he must be an eccentric genius. Rossi seems like a scammer to me. Of course, I hope he really has come up with a wonder-working machine, but until there are some independent replications, I do not see why I should believe that he has. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
Am 13.11.2011 19:15, schrieb Vorl Bek: I have had it with Mary Yugo. I think Mary Yugo is a good addition to this list. Mary Yugo's skepticism is better than excusing Rossi's odd behaviour on the grounds that he must be an eccentric genius. Rossi seems like a scammer to me. Of course, I hope he really has come up with a wonder-working machine, but until there are some independent replications, I do not see why I should believe that he has. Rossi works with his customer on electric power, he says. This confirms what I already have said: This plant is experimental and cannot been used as an industrial heater and the customer, if real, is interested in the technology and not in an industrial strength heater. The new commercial website says expected lifetime: 20 years I find this ridiculous, this looked already very bad and corroded at september 6 and had leaks. And yes, let Rossi be Rossi. I will not buy a 1MW plant and most here will not and Rossi is not interested in public proof. Its absolutely impossible to do something. Even spreading the news is impossible without evidence and would not help Rossi. So he must do what he wants and if in 2 years (when Im still alive) he presents a selrunning 1 MW power plant, then I am convinced and happy. Andrea Rossi * November 13th, 2011 at 9:34 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=32#comment-117942 Dear Bernie Koppenhofer: Yes, we are working on this issue with the same Customer that made the test of October 28th and I am totally sure that we will be able to accomplish this target in matter of less than 2 years. Warm Regards, A.R. * November 13th, 2011 at 9:29 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=32#comment-117938 Mr Rossi: Recently you were asked if the E-Cat could replace the coal fired turbines in coal power plants, your reply was We are working on it, it will be possible, yes. Can you give us any kind of time frame for when this will be possible? Are you giving this development top priority? This development alone could create an economic boom, which the whole world needs desperately. *
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
In reply to Peter Heckert's message of Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:51:08 +0100: Hi, [snip] Andrea Rossi * November 13th, 2011 at 9:34 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=32#comment-117942 Dear Bernie Koppenhofer: Yes, we are working on this issue with the same Customer that made the test of October 28th and I am totally sure that we will be able to accomplish this target in matter of less than 2 years. Warm Regards, A.R. ...I am totally sure Rossi speak translation I hope. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
On 11/13/2011 1:15 PM, Vorl Bek wrote: I have had it with Mary Yugo. I think Mary Yugo is a good addition to this list. Mary Yugo's skepticism is better than excusing Rossi's odd behaviour on the grounds that he must be an eccentric genius. I have no idea if Rossi is a scammer or if he really has something. There's evidence to point both ways. He's certainly... unique. I'd like to be real, but he's gone out of his way to muddy the waters. Now the Pro-Rossi side is going to scream He has nothing to prove to anyone! Yeah, save it, heard it before. I'm going to agree with Vorl Bek and Peter Gluck. Mary is a good addition to the list, she's asking good questions, and has a sense of humor I like. The bacardi comment made me laugh, thanks Mary. Alan, she was kidding around, Google comedy and sarcasm. If you can't poke a little fun at all this mess, well, you're being entirely too serious. Vorl, Peter, the following is not directed at you, so if I say you in what I type below, I am only being general... I'll go on record saying that if anyone here is acting like a fully convicted creationist, it's the pro-Rossi side, at least here on Vortex. The man may be scamming, or he may not be. He may have the find of the century. It'd be great if he did. But just to believe that he isn't doing this... sounds like faith? Things are starting to sound so evangelical it's getting disturbing. But what can I say, I don't have a taste for faith and those sort of things these days, being one-hair-shy-of-an-agnostic. Show me da proof, mah boy. But...but... Rossi has nothing to prove to you!!! Nope, he doesn't, but he's made himself plenty public, made God knows how many claims, and there's money changing hands. How many people worldwide are spending money to replicate this? In the off chance he is lying (or more likely self deluding, if [IF] this isn't the real deal), valuable research time and money is being lost by unaffiliated parties. And while we're at it, you pro-Rossi folk want to talk about a dry run? Well, let's talk about a dry run. The following is an excerpt from a post I almost made, but clicked cancel. I'm sure plenty of you will be glad I didn't post the whole thing, but Warnock or not, here it is: Begin 1. Boiler companies may not (may not is stressed... a new design MAY) do any sort of dry runs, but this is using a technology that is hundreds of years old, and is known to work and reasonably well understood. There are no bullshit isotopes of copper that are somehow stable in an oil furnace. That said, I have talked to an older fellow who once worked with Dunkirk Radiator, and in the design process it is not unheard of to run the thing with line water pressure WITHOUT firing the thing up. How is this different than Rossi's thing? Very simply: Conventional boiler (type 2 diesel oil as example): -Chemical reaction - heats water -No electric heaters contributing to effect -No need to use inert fuel (nitrogen, etc) to see where the anomalous heat is coming from, because there is NO alternate heat source (no electric heater inside) Rossi's boiler (for want of a better term): -Nuclear reaction (unverified) - heats water -Electric heaters involved, contributes to effect by some amount -DEFINITE need to use inert fuel to make certain no nuclear reaction is taking place to see what the difference is between running on pure electric support power, and what the magnitude of the effect is. This is not a debatable point, and is how science is done. PERIOD. If you want to take Rossi's statement on face value, remember the N-rays. And that isn't science, so maybe you'd better go to church instead. 1a. Why would you NOT do this to convince anyone? 1b. Rossi doesn't want to convince anyone, but he wants to sell. Why not do both when it is cheap to do so? What have you lost, a little time? You supporters make it sound like the guy has no time to even hit the latrine. 1c. He has nothing to prove to anyone. Granted, fine. But going around making claims is inviting skepticism and criticism. You may be able to get away with it if you're not involving cash, but if you are, well, you'd better get used to it. 1d. If this experiment wasn't the pet favorite topic of the pro-Rossi Vortexians, no one would be doing the 1c above. It would be put up or shut up. End So that's my opinion, and I stick to it. If you like it, great. If not, well, I have other opinions. Sorry Groucho, I honestly do respect your principles. And just one more thing... if anyone here wants to throw the no sneering rule at Mary, or anyone else for that matter, then you better damn well do as Eric Clapton said: Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself. Read your own posts, and remove the spanish galleon from thine own eye before picking at sawdust. I will say this, and I am convinced of it; if this didn't have to do with cold fusion, if Rossi was claiming antigravity or something else, things would
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
Hear, hear! On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Kyle Mcallister kyle_mcallis...@yahoo.comwrote: On 11/13/2011 1:15 PM, Vorl Bek wrote: Jed: I have had it with Mary Yugo. I think Mary Yugo is a good addition to this list. Mary Yugo's skepticism is better than excusing Rossi's odd behaviour on the grounds that he must be an eccentric genius.
