On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
I was done commenting on your posts, but I see you want me to comment
more.
Horace, your 15 years of experience has it's limits because you
have never seen Rossi like setup before. You should not rely on
that, because it might fail you.
Uh ... a device is purported to create excess heat. Bad calorimetry
(even as admitted by you) is applied to public demonstrations.
Public and press pointed this out. Instead of doing the right thing
and correcting the calorimetry and re-running tests at nominal cost
and effort, the response is to change the device and continue with
more bad calorimetry of a different sort? The response is to keep
true experts away that have extensive experience and will do
calorimetry for free. How can anyone rely on any claims when kind
of approach is taken? You think we haven't seen this kind of thing
here on vortex before? What do you think the success rate is for
creating useful products using this kind of approach? We have even
seen people who have struggled to prove themselves wrong, who
continually strived to get to the scientific truth, and still failed
to make a product designed to produce the expected excess heat.
However, such efforts are highly laudable. They exhibit the best
qualities of mankind and the scientific method. The seekers avoided
at great cost going down the road of fantasy and self delusion that
such a large majority of free energy seekers have gone before. This
is not an uncommon occurrence, now or in the past.
"A more self-willed, self-satisfied, or self-deluded class of the
community, making at the same time pretension to superior knowledge,
it would be impossible to imagine. They hope against hope, scorning
all opposition with ridiculous vehemence, although centuries have not
advanced them one step in the way of progress."
Henry Dircks, Perpetuam Mobile, or A History of Search for Self-
Motive Power from the 13th to the 19th Century, 1870, P.354. A
comment on perpetual motion seekers.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg51474.html
I am amazed why do you have so much difficulties to admit that
there is a correlation between steam production rate (i.e.
pressure) and enthalpy? Do you discard it only because you were
unable to come up with the idea yourself?
There is a correlation between how fast a vehicle drives and how much
gas it uses. This correlation means nothing with regards to mileage
the vehicle gets. The vehicle could be a Prius which gets 50 miles
per gallon (21 km/liter) , or an army tank which gets 3 gallons per
mile (0.142 km/liter). The problem is insufficient known variables.
Why do you demand ultra high accuracy for calorimetry for short
tests, although short tests cannot exclude hidden power sources.
Also your suggestions for method does not even provide great
accuracy without extensive efforts, but calorimetry from steam
pressure is here more accurate, because there is not involved
unknown rate of escaping heat due to insufficient insulation. We
can estimate the heat loss just by measuring the surface
temperature of E-Cat. Very simple and accurate.
This statement I take to be out of touch with reality. What should I
call it? Fantasy seems like a nice word. What word would you
recommend I use?
Is it not easier to demand that MW power plant would run
continuously producing it's own electricity 24 hours per day, and
seven days per week and 52 weeks per year?
No. It is reasonable to expect someone making claims which can cost
investors thousands or millions of dollars to apply some effort to
correct bad work before moving on to something so big that it is
dangerous, very expensive, and very difficult to prove out with a
test. Testing the small components (E-cats) makes much more sense.
If the small components do not create free or nuclear energy then an
aggregate of them can not produce free or nuclear energy. If the
small units perform as expected as scientifically verified then the
large unit can be expected to perform, except perhaps with
operational and safety difficulties due to increased complexity and
size.
See how utterly out of context your pondring is here, because
indeed, electricity production rate depends on only one thing and
that is the pressure of steam MW E-Cat can provide.
Sigh. Water can be sealed into an insulated box and massive
temperatures and pressure built up with nominal energy. Using this
approach with an E-cat is supposed to prove free energy?? This
appears to be an assertion that is without any basis in fact. What
would you like me to call that? The nicest word that comes to mind
is fantasy.
Calibration of instruments is of course necessary, but even more
necessary is to use common sense.
Also, instead of more insults,
Could you be very specific as to what I said that you consider an
insult?
i am still expecting you to apologize your public insults what you
have made. I am especially offended by your insults that did end up
into Krivit's Blog.
I should note that I had nothing to do with Krivit's publishing my
post. He did not contact me before posting it on his blog. OTOH, I
have publicly given permission to anyone to publish anything I post,
with the obvious caveat that it could easily be (and often is)
wrong, and that my posts I consider casual conversation, that my
views evolve with discussion. I don't post anything on his blog
because he feels free to edit any posts.
If you feel my post is mistaken or insulting it is strange you did
not post a rebuttal on the blog. Here is the URL:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/09/15/collected-comments-on-
sept-7-afternoon-rossi-test/
I don't see any disagreement with my opinions posted there.
.
And also, I consider your experience with zero value.
.
That is or course your prerogative, though I find that highly
insulting and a personal attack!! 8^)) I would note that there is
a significant difference between attacking an individual and
criticizing the prose an individual puts forth.
However, my position stands or fails on the numbers and formulas I
provide. I don't see you providing much in the way of numbers or
formulas or making much in the way of corrections to my numbers. I
admittedly make lots of typos, clerical errors, and just stupid
mistakes. I am a doddering old man. I say this often. I am happy to
be corrected. Please correct away! But if you expect to have any
credibility at all you will need to be specific, not only in
criticizing me, but in putting forth your own positions. When you
make such a wild claim that all that has to be done is measure E-cat
pressure and outside temperature to do calorimetry, you need to
show a method which accomplishes that. You need to show precisely
what formulas apply and provide a sample calculation. Without that,
it is merely arm waving from the peanut gallery. If you assert that
using instrumentation buried inside a device of unknown structure is
as reliable as independent outside the box measurement of inputs and
outputs according to standard calorimetry methods, you need to supply
more than just your opinion. If you assert you have a calorimetry
method that works, then you should not make excuses for not proving
it out using ordinary and inexpensive techniques, namely the use of
control heat sources in control experiments, and calibrated thermal
heat pulses in live runs.
Only thing that matters is what you are now. In the history we have
just too much examples where experience has guided people into
wrong direction, so it is not relevant to trust into experience,
but do the thinking always on the basis of fresh arguments and
clear thinking without prejudices.
I certainly feel that my technical thinking on these matters is clear
headed, guided by experience, and numerically supported. I of
course feel free to reject any of unsupported opinions or claims you
make, and to ignore anything you post I deem to be without any
technical merit. Sometimes when a post is made that demonstrates
beyond all reasonable doubt the error of the poster's position, I
simply leave it at that. What comment is necessary then?
—Jouni
On Sep 20, 2011 9:51 AM, "Horace Heffner" <hheff...@mtaonline.net>
wrote:
> Excuses, excuses, excuses, piled on more excuses for using methods
> which produce no reliable conclusions, for taking shortcuts around
> things so simple teenagers can do them, and not diligently
working to
> disprove claims. How sad. I suppose you don't think you need bother
> with calibration control runs to check calorimetry methods. Must be
> true if quality calorimetry is never applied I guess. Doing accurate
> calorimetry could prove embarrassing I suppose, so why bother
> spending time and money on that? With such bad calorimetry methods
> applied so far there is a risk it could all be merely a big
> systematic mistake. That would be so inconvenient to discover.
>
> Well, I've made an attempt to provide what benefit I can from of my
> little experiences doing free energy experiments, and spending 15
> years discussing things just like this. I'm not sure why I posted at
> all on this. I suppose it present some fun problems and an
> opportunity to learn. Hopefully, my posting has contributed to the
> gestalt of the list.
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
>> 2011/9/20 Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net>:
>>> It seems with regard to the E-cat that one of the most basic
>>> scientific
>>> methods, known to every high school student who studies
science, is
>>> overlooked.
>>> That is the importance of using experimental controls.
>>
>> Uh. No way it is important!
>>
>> What is required is that someone, who knows how to measure the
>> enthalpy tests the device in an over night run to exclude chemical
>> power sources. You are doing science here by the book, but it is
even
>> more important to understand in what context methods from
scientists'
>> guide book should be applied.
>>
>> Control experiment would be necessary in the case where we do
not know
>> the cause and effect very well. This would be the case e.g. with
>> traditional palladium-deuterium cold fusion experiment, where we do
>> not have clear understanding what is happening. Here however, we do
>> not need to study how electric heater works, because we have
plenty of
>> theoretical knowledge about electric heaters. Therefore, we can
just
>> calculate electric heater effect when we have measured the
input, and
>> we do not need to use experimental setup to find out how
electricity
>> heats the system.
>>
>> I think that you are mixing here the need for control experiment,
>> because there was not made adequate calorimetry. But if you do make
>> calorimetry for the device (easiest way is to measure the pressure
>> inside), of course there is no need to make control experiment,
>> because electric input is known and controlled. If electric heating
>> power would be also unknown, then of course control experiment
would
>> be necessary.
>>
>> Rossi has several times ridiculed this demand for "control
>> experiments" as it would be same thing as testing well known
internal
>> combustion engine by using sand instead of oil as a lubrication
agent
>> in the control experiment. (this metaphor was not Rossi's, but
you get
>> the picture.)
>>
>>> In the case of the MW E-cat, which has an enormous thermal mass
>>> and is
>>> highly complex, a control experiment has the added importance of
>>> being a
>>> means to develop confidence in safe operating procedures and
>>> emergency
>>> procedures.
>>>
>>
>> I am sure that for the last 24 months and last 4 months with the
new
>> version, Rossi has done nothing but test runs!
>>
>> –Jouni
>>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
