rofl
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > *A dependent, 2nd party, untestable claim means squat* > > > This paper is yet another unrefereed, sub-par cold fusion claim to add to > the pile of unrefereed sub-par cold fusion claims. Only this is is an > unrefereed, sub-par cold fusion claim made with a black box that no one > else has access to. Pitiful. > > > I'm amazed that this has caused such excitement among true believers. It > will be amusing if this all comes crashing down like the wet steam claims > did. The 2011 demos got Rothwell and Storms and others to say Rossi was the > be-all and end-all in cold fusion, but a year or so later, Rothwell was > back to citing McKubre's 1994 paper as the best evidence for cold fusion. > It all just shows the incredible bias among true believers for any kind of > a scrap of good news that they can rally around to feed their euphoria a > little longer. And Storms' support for the 2011 demos served to show him as > gullible as the rest of the true believers. > > > What has changed with this new report? Before we had Levi, Essen, > Kullander, and Focardi writing unrefereed reports published on-line > claiming that Rossi has demonstrated a source of energy beyond chemical, > and Pettersson giving his verbal support, and Levi reporting a secret > experiment that verified the ecat without steam. Now we have Levi, Essen, > Pettersson, and a couple of new Swedish professors (Uppsala's shame!) > writing an unrefereed report of a secret experiment published on-line > claiming that Rossi has demonstrated a source of energy beyond chemical. > > > Some believers argue that this is what skeptics asked for, but it's not > even close. In early April, I said that it was not at all unlikely that > allegedly independent 3rd parties would claim clear evidence of LENR, but > then wrote: > > > " > > *Allegedly independent 3rd parties could simply be some little-known > academics. But we already know from the BLP history that statements from > such academics mean squat. Especially if the academics appear to be > recruited […] [E]ven if the statement is definite, a scientific > revolution will need more to go on than trust in a few recruited academics. > Individual academics, […] with unremarkable reputations, have essentially > nothing to lose by being wrong. In fact, if Rossi pays consulting fees, > they may have a lot to gain. [It's not, as some have said, P&F again, > because no one is paying attention, and so no one will notice if they get > it wrong.]* > > ** > > *Skeptics have been asking for independent validation, but reports about > a black box from a few (or even a dozen) individuals is not that.* > > ** > > *For exactly the same reason, it is unlikely a prominent journal will > publish claims of a new phenomenon that can't be tested by its audience. > So, if a report is published, it will be in a small-time journal, and no > matter how detailed, if it's a black-box test, it still relies on trust.* > > ** > > *So what is needed? The best would be if the details of the reactor were > disclosed so others could test the claims, but of course that won't happen. > Next best would be if the reactor were made available on request, so it > could be tested by anyone. Also won't happen. Third best would be a public > demonstration involving some experts who are on the record as being > skeptical, and which is really transparent. With an energy density a > million times higher than dynamite, this should not be difficult. A > completely and obviously isolated device that produced unequivocal heat > many times its total weight in chemical fuel would do the trick (and should > be trivial).* > > ** > > *Failing those, the only sort of validation that would have an impact is > one in which the independence is truly transparent, and the consequences of > being wrong are significant. This would be the case, for example, if Rossi > had an open invitation to major national laboratories to run the test, and > one or more openly and voluntarily sent a team for the purpose. Any labs > that offer to perform the test and are turned down would be in a position > to report that publicly. National labs or even university endorsed teams > have a lot more to lose than a few academics acting on their own. This is > less than perfect, but it would certainly draw a lot of attention. But I'm > pretty sure that's not gonna happen either. Alas.* > > ** > > *Whatever happens in the next month or two, it will almost certainly have > no significant impact on mainstream science, and at most a ripple on the > mainstream media. A year from now, LENR and the ecat will be in exactly the > same place they are now, which is exactly where they were a year ago, and > where they were 2 years ago. There will be an eager internet following > expecting something big real soon now, but the rest of the world will > remain more or less oblivious.* > > " > > > So, what has happened falls short of every criteria I considered that > would make it significant, and met precisely those criteria I said > beforehand would fall short. The authors are little-known academics, acting > without the backing of their institutions, and they certainly appear to > have been hand-picked, 3 of them being previous supporters of obviously > flawed demos. They published in an unrefereed journal, and of course, it's > a black-box test. > > > We are asked to accept a revolution in physics based on trust of these few > people. Trust that they have not been fooled by Rossi, that they are not > complicit in deception, and that they are competent to validate the > technology. We have already seen that Levi, Essen, and Pettersson are not > competent, and the present paper suggests none of the authors are. If you > can think of a similar revolution that was widely accepted based on this > sort of charade, please let me know what it was. > > > *The paper* > > > As for the paper itself, as already mentioned, it's a black box test > performed by selected scientists in secret. We are asked to accept a > revolution in physics based on trust of these few people. Trust that they > have not been fooled by Rossi, that they are not complicit in deception, > and that they are competent to validate the technology. We have already > seen that Levi, Essen, and Pettersson are not competent, and the present > paper suggests none of the authors are. If you can think of a similar > revolution that was widely accepted based on this sort of charade, please > let me know what it was. > > > Of course, a black-box test is no impediment to proving the ecat is real, > as many of us have argued. But it must be more than a secret experiment > presented in a written report. A written report is enough for a completely > disclosed experiment, because then *anyone* skilled in the art can check > the claims independently, and of course, that's how most discoveries reach > the mainstream. But no one can check this result, and that's why most > prominent journals would reject it as a scientific paper. A black-box > experiment must either be openly performed with obvious controls, or must > be available to any qualified team for testing. From that point of view, > the 2011 demos were better than this, because it was at least semi-open, > constraining to some extent what they could get away with. The problem > there was that the reported observations themselves (except Levi's secret > experiment) did not support the claims. > > > This above all, is key. Even if the report were impeccable in every way, > it would still require trust, and no scientific revolution should rely on > the trust of a few men, no matter how respectable. The report is just not > enough. In that sense, criticism of the report itself is kind of > superfluous, but it does make the idea of incompetence or Rossi-imposed > constraints more likely than complicity (which would be accompanied by a > more flawless effort). > > > *1. Independence* > > > This is clearly not an independent test in the sense that the testers did > not appear to choose the protocol or the methods. It was already running > when they arrived. That means Rossi picked the protocol, and he was clearly > involved because when it came time to inspect the inside, he took it off > premises to remove the powder and then brought it back. This is important, > because I don't think serious scientists would do the experiment in the way > it was done, as Storms has lamented. > > > *2. Why not self-sustaining* > > > As with many cold fusion claims, the biggest weakness is not apparent from > blatant errors detectable in a written report (especially when it can't *in > principle* be checked) but from what could be so easily shown if the claims > were valid, but isn't. If it were real, I'm nearly certain this is not the > way it would be revealed. I'm satisfied that if the claims were true, it > could be self-sustaining, and even if not for some obscure reason, with the > existing claims, a truly whiz-bang demo could be easily staged, and Rossi > would be on tour showing it off from the mountain tops. It would *not* be > demonstrated in seclusion using an IR camera. > > A truly isolated, self-sustaining device that heats enough water, or lifts > a heavy object (like a truck) to prove that it generates at least a few > times its own weight in chemical energy could not be disputed. The amount > of energy claimed could heat a 1000L hot tub to boiling (twice in the first > run). > > > It should be especially easy to make a thermal-to-thermal device > self-sustaining. If (e.g.) 360 W uniformly distributed from the outside of > the reactor cylinder is enough to initiate the reaction, then 1.5 kW > generated within the cylinder would surely keep it going. And if it > couldn't, as was suggested by someone, a little insulation and controlled > cooling could maintain whatever temperature inside is necessary to keep the > reaction going. > > > Like combustion, it would self-sustain, and I think most serious > scientists would find it difficult to accept such a claim if they have to > keep the thing plugged in. The ludicrous suggestion that the on-off cycles > represent self-sustaining is one illustration of the incompetence of the > authors. Enough has been said about thermal mass to make their comments on > the subject look foolish. > > > *3. The input side* > > > But no, as in all limitless energy claims, there's *always* input, and, > par for the course, the input power is comically vague. Between the need > for 3 phase input, clamp meters (which don't detect dc bias, or zero net > current in paired wires), industrial trade secret waveform, a power shaping > box not available for inspection, and the completely superfluous on/off > cycling, it all looks like excuses to slip one past them, and that's the > most likely source of the biggest deception. What kind of power supply that > consumes less than 1 kW needs a 3-phase input, especially if it generates > single-phase output? (Claims that other devices were plugged in to the same > socket are not consistent with the 3-phase requirement of the power > supply.) Independent scientists would have insisted on more careful > scrutiny of the input, and would have reported a more detailed examination > of the question. > > > Some have claimed the wires were not capable of supplying the necessary > power, but that's clearly nonsense in the only run that involved the > Swedes, because in that run, the cylinder reached the same temperature in > the calibration phase. In the first run, the power was about twice as high, > but even then, no credible proof of lenr should come down to guessing at > the capacity of the wires to within a factor of 2. > > > Some have claimed the calibration run excludes tricks on the input side. > But the calibration was run with constant power, and the live run used the > on/off cycling. They gave no justification for the use of the on/off > cycling, or whose idea it was. They didn't report measuring the box output > during the cycling, and in fact, I think that was verboten. It could have > been cycling, but sitting on a dc bias, so the average power was much > higher. It's entirely possible that when the cycling was initiated, the > measurement of the input power was somehow tricked. Ways to do this have > been suggested, and no controls to exclude them were discussed in the > paper. There is clearly room for some deception here. > > > Why wouldn't they use identical power conditions for the calibration and > live runs? That seems like a no-brainer. > > > If they do have to provide input power to run the ecat, then it should be > in an obviously finite way. For example, the batteries in a Chevy volt > could supply the power for half of the first run on one charge. > > > *4. Where does the heat come from?* > > > In the spirit of point # 2, another fairly obvious indication of the > source of the heat could have been provided with thermocouples placed on > the reactor cylinder and outside the resistor radius. If the heat was > coming from the inner reactor, it would be substantially hotter than the > resistors themselves. Thermocouples are available for temperatures up to > the melting point of most metals. > > > In fact, Levi claims the horizontal black lines in the Nov run are shadows > formed by the resistors in front of the hotter reactor core. It doesn't > seem to occur to him that the dark lines could be the spaces between the > resistors, which suggests a rather serious case of confirmation bias on his > part. > > > > *5. Stefan-Boltzmann* > > > No competent independent scientist would agree to validate a claimed > revolution in physics by measuring total heat using IR thermometry and the > Stefan-Boltzmann equation. They've spent months on the experiment. How hard > could it be to enclose the thing and do proper flow calorimetry on it? It's > gonna have to be done to exploit the heat, unless you only use it as a > space heater. > > > The question of emissivity is not trivial, especially for metals. In the > first experiment, they claim to take unity as a conservative value, and > justify this (prove it, they say) by assigning 0.8 and 0.95 and finding the > software gives a higher temperature reading. The camera actually measures > power directly, and converts to temperature using the supplied emissivity, > so when you convert back to power using emissivity, it should cancel. > Unfortunately, the power is measured over a very limited part of the > spectrum, and so it has to infer the total power by fitting to Planck's > curve, and that depends on emissivity, and therefore, the actual dependence > of the final power on the emissivity will depend on the emissivity itself. > And even then, the instrument makes a grey body assumption (wavelength > independent emissivity), which does not apply to metals. So it is far from > clear what the measurements mean if the emissivity were 0.2 or less, as is > common for metals, and even some paints. Rossi could well have chosen a > paint that erred in his favor for the first test, where the COP is about 5. > > > In the second test, they used different paint and made some attempt to > determine the emissivity and to check the temperature with a thermocouple, > but for some reason, only at temperatures (245C) below the operating > temperature (300C). This is better, but it's still error-prone. And this > run got a COP of less than 3, and used trickier input with the on/off > cycling. > > > As Storms has said: "These are not difficult or complicated things to do > (using calorimetry e.g.). Why are half measures repeatedly used? Why must > we have to debate details that are easy to eliminate as issues?" I think > the obvious reason is that when full measures are used, the effect > disappears, and no one hears about it. > > > > *6. Mass delusion* > > > Are these independent scientists really too daft to insist on mass > measurements that mean something? In the first run, they couldn't measure > the ecat beforehand because it was already running (i.e. Rossi started > it!), but they measured another "perfectly similar device" -- really it > was; Rossi said so. Then they said they learned from the experience, but in > the second run they don't report weighing it beforehand either. In the > second run they weigh it after, and then let Rossi make off with it to > remove the powder, and use the difference as the mass of the fuel. > > > In neither case do we have any idea of the mass of the fuel, other than > the fact that it had to fit inside the cylinder. That probably still > doesn't explain the claimed energy with a chemical fuel, but it might take > a little heat off any input misrepresentation Rossi slipped by them. > > > > *7. Power density* > > > The power density claims seem implausible and suggest the authors didn't > really think about them. Nuclear sources do not necessarily produce high > power densities, and in fact, the power density in a fission plant is > typically lower than in a fossil fuel plant. That's because the temperature > in the core has to be kept below the melting point of the fuel. When you > burn coal, there's no such constraint. A nuclear plant is designed to > remove the heat from the core as rapidly as possible, and if I read it > right, a 1 GW plant uses about 200t of Uranium, for a power density of 5 > kW/kg. That's 100 time lower than they're claiming for Ni-H, which has a > much lower melting point. The rate of heat removal depends on the > temperature difference, so it seems implausible that such a power density > is possible without vastly exceeding the melting point of the nickel. > > > Furthermore, to suggest it exceeds conceivable chemical power densities is > nonsense. The power density of TNT is 10^8 kW/kg, 200 times higher than > they claim. This is an explosive release of course, but still. > > > The power density is neither here nor there, when it comes to claiming > nuclear reactions, and the Ragone plot is silly. The important claims are > all about energy density. But the power density reveals that they have been > careless, unless I've made some grievous error above. > > > > *8. Energy density* > > > The total energy claimed, if true, certainly suggests a new source beyond > known chemical sources. In such cases, long runs, as skeptics always ask > for, can exclude hidden power sources (or at least limit them), but they > don't exclude errors in the power measurement, either input or output. Once > you have an apparent excess power, any excess energy is just a matter of > time, and so beyond excluding hidden sources as the explanation, the actual > value is entirely arbitrary. In other words, the long run places at least > some suspicion on the power measurements. > > > --- > > > To sum up, like Motl, I don't think the paper is well-written at all. It's > kind of a stream of consciousness style writing, and a little amateurish. > But the worst part is that the experiments are very poorly conceived. That > is probably because of constraints imposed by Rossi, but whatever the case, > no objective validators would choose IR thermometry to measure excess heat, > and they would be far more careful and explicit about the measurement of > input power and the device and internal masses. > > > But again, the quality of the paper is secondary to its context. It gives > some impression of the authors, but the overriding criticism is that the > claims cannot be checked. > > > So, to my mind, it's too early to celebrate. If Rossi ever makes ecats > publicly available for truly independent testing by anyone who wants to, > and it stands up, the world will beat a path to his door. It will be 1989 > all over again. But, I doubt that a secret experiment performed by a cadre > of true believers on an undisclosed device is going to make much of an > impact. > > >
