R: The best thing Rossi could do is to SHUT UP, AND STOP PUTTING HIS FOOT IN HIS MOUTH OR HIS HEAD UP HIS ASS!
::M On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Rich Murray <rmfor...@gmail.com> wrote: > long competent blog discussions on possible reality of Rossi HNi > reactor, April 11 to May 22, 2010, May 16 to 22, especially Abd Lomax > and Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.05.23 > > > [Vo]:Re: Joshua Cude at it > from Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com > reply-to vorte...@eskimo.com > to vorte...@eskimo.com > date Sun, May 22, 2011 at 6:58 PM > subject [Vo]:Re: Joshua Cude at it > 6:58 PM (22 hours ago) > > By the way, the blog that these comments from Cude were posted on was that > of > Kjell Aleklett, Professor of Physics, Global Energy Systems, Uppsala > University, > http://www.physics.uu.se/ges , > President of ASPO International (Association for the Study of Peak Oil & > Gas), > Website: http://aleklett.wordpress.com . > > > http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/rossi-energy-catalyst-a-big-hoax-or-new-physics/ > > long competent blog discussions on possible reality of Rossi HNi reactor, > April 11 to May 22, 2010 > > > http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/the-sun-rossi%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Denergy-catalyzer%E2%80%9D-and-the-%E2%80%9Cneutron-barometer%E2%80%9D/#comment-5906 > > more, May 16 to May 22, 2011 > > > [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it > from Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com > reply-to vorte...@eskimo.com > to vorte...@eskimo.com > date Sun, May 22, 2011 at 3:35 PM > subject [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it > May 22 (1 day ago) > > < > http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/the-sun-rossi%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9denergy-catalyzer%e2%80%9d-and-the-%e2%80%9cneutron-barometer%e2%80%9d#comment-5906 > >Joshua > Cude said on < > http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/the-sun-rossi%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9denergy-catalyzer%e2%80%9d-and-the-%e2%80%9cneutron-barometer%e2%80%9d > >The > sun, Rossi’s ”energy catalyzer” and the “neutron barometer” > > I'm not responding there, not yet anyway, since the blog owner seems > irritated by CF discussion taking over. He tells a remarkable story, > see the previous > > http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/rossi-energy-catalyst-a-big-hoax-or-new-physics/ > , > which Joshua Cude may not have read, since he roundly sticks his foot > in his mouth. > > May 22, 2011 at 7:51 am > > In response to aleklett on May 16, 2011 at 3:45 pm: > > One hundred years ago the sun’s source of energy was a complete > mystery. The famous professor Svante Arrhenius is said to have > asserted that the sun’s energy output could not be due to combustion > and that there was no other explanation. Today our knowledge of > physics allows us to explain why the sun can radiate [...] > > So far, claimed evidence for excess heat in a Rossi apparatus has been > observed directly only by people vetted by Rossi. First Levi, who was > on Rossi’s editorial board, and the recipient of research funding from > Rossi. Then Essen & Kallander who were on record as being sympathetic > to the Rossi device. And lastly journalist/blogger Lewan, who was on > record as being an uncritical Rossi groupie. > > Cude is correct as to observers. But, ah, those people! Cude will > point out avery factoid he can find that might seem to impeach > evidence, this is what he's done for a long time. When the January > announcement came out, I pointed out that when the possible economic > impact of something is as great as this, fraud that might be normally > so impractical, as to be preposterous as a consideration, might not > be. People can be bought, and people can also be fooled. I pointed out > that we won't know *absolutely for sure* until there are multiple > fully independent replications or verifications. > > This isn't like ordinary cold fusion, where the experiment was very > difficult to set up. If this thing works or doesn't work, it will be > obvious. It is to the point, already, where "fraud" is, first of all, > the only possibility besides "it's real," and "fraud" has become so > remote that *believing* it is a fraud is insane, hanging one's hat on > something quite unlikely. But not yet impossible, and if I were about > to write a check for a hundred million dollars, I'd certainly want to > see more than has become public! Frankly, if, as seems quite possible > from the announcements, these things come on the market by the > beginning of next year for a few thousand dollars, I wouldn't be the > first on my block to write a check. But .... maybe the second! > > Cude is just tossing mud to make his correct initial statement mean > more than it does. This is an invention, not yet clearly well > protected by patent, and Rossi, if we assume this is real, has many > sound reasons to keep it very private. As far as we can tell, so far, > he hasn't solicited funding, except from Ampenergo, a reputable > company in the U.S., formed by people who have long worked with Rossi, > they know him well. Rossi does not need other investors, apparently. > > We know from Aleklett's previous blog post on this that he personally > knows Kullander, the "person" whom Cude so cavalierly dismisses as if > he were some shill. From his blog: > > First I would like to mention that Professor Sven Kullander -- who is > chairman of The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ Energy committee, > since the beginning of the year -- is also a professor emeritus in my > research group at Uppsala University. He sits in the room next to mine > so Rossi’s experiment has come up every time we have met in recent > weeks. I always try to be as critical as possible, but at the same > time it is exciting to be pretty close to the center of something that > is either a hoax or something new and exciting. There are scientists > who criticize Sven for associating himself with the experiment, but > also many that think he is doing the right thing. As scientists we > have a responsibility to investigate whether a reported phenomenon is > real or a hoax. Sven’s involvement is quite natural since he is > chairman of the KVA’s energy committee, but if anyone thinks that he > has simply accepted the results then they are completely wrong. By > attending and examining the experiment, he also has the opportunity to > confirm or reject. As a researcher, you want an explanation for what > is happening and right now there appears to be no suitable explanation > with the knowledge we currently have in chemistry and physics. This > means that it may be entirely new physics that must be explained or it > may be a scam that must be explained and exposed. > > And Cude's comment on Mats Lewan, the Ny Teknik reporter (highly > qualified and professional), is simply an evidence-free cheap shot. > I've seen nothing but professional work from Lewan, but Cude, > anonymous, can say whatever he likes, and it won't fall back on him. > If Lewan screws up, it's his livelihood. Cude is a coward, hiding > behind his anonymity. I have a suspicion who he is, but .... I don't > know that for sure, not yet. > > Cude continues: > > In experiments where more details are available to outsiders (mainly > by photos or video), more contradictions and outright inaccuracies > have been exposed. In the January experiment the most public one so > far the claimed flow rate is not consistent with the pump in the > video, the duration at 100C is 17 minutes according to the video of > the screen, not 40 minutes as claimed; the average input power is 1 > kW, but the brief reduction to 400 W is used to calculate the gain, > even though there is obvious thermal mass in the apparatus. > > In examining a body of evidence and comparing it with reports, it's > always possible to find apparent contradictions. Obviously, the more > evidence is available, the more exposure there is to error and > inaccuracy. I'm not examining all these specific claims, but I'll note > that many have been over this evidence with a fine-tooth comb, and > Cude's interpretations certainly are not as accepted and obvious as > he'd like us to believe. "Brief reduction to 400 W"? This is what the > physorg.com report has: > > The reactor uses less than 1 gram of hydrogen and starts with about > 1,000 W of electricity, which is reduced to 400 W after a few minutes. > Every minute, the reaction can convert 292 grams of 20°C water into > dry steam at about 101°C. Since raising the temperature of water by > 80°C and converting it to steam requires about 12,400 W of power, the > experiment provides a power gain of 12,400/400 = 31. > > Cude has it backwards. The input power, which is initially used to > raise the temperature of the reactor to operating temperature, is > scaled back to 400 watts for the remainder of the demonstration, not > "for a few minutes." See also > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf and other reports on > the January demonstration. The January demonstration was, indeed, the > "most public," but in other demonstrations, observers were allowed > much closer access to the device and the setup. The January > demonstration had some obvious shortcomings, as to possible fraud > mechanisms, and other demonstrations addressed these. It has been > pointed out that a fraud could use different mechanisms in different > demonstrations, and, in my view, there is no end of this possibility, > until and unless fully independent verification is possible. I see no > way that Rossi can avoid this happening before the end of the year. If > something comes up and he can't deliver, my opinion, he'll be forced > to provide evaluation units, which are already claimed to exist, in > order to survive. He's following what is, for him, Plan A, the > delivery of a 1 MW assembly of individual E-Cats by October. > > What Cude is betraying is his own severe bias: he's *certain* that > this is a fraud, and how can he be certain? It's because he's bought > the common nonsense about cold fusion, that it is, that by established > physical theory, it's *impossible.* That is a religious, > pseudoskeptical belief, it's not a rational or skeptical one. Cold > fusion is claimed to operate by an "unknown mechanism," all that is > known for Pd-D cold fusion is the main fuel (deuterium) and the main > product (helium), not the mechanism by which deuterium is convered > into helium. And theory cannot predict a fusion cross-section for > "unknown reaction," not without making some unwarranted -- and, in the > past, unstated -- assumptions as to reaction mechanism. > > Aleklett is showing us the response of a phyisicst, a genuine skeptic, > who knows that he doesn't know everything. "Show me!" is his approach, > and he's willing to look. Cude is not willing to look, except to look > for "flaws." Whatever he can find to justify sitting in his secure > smugness. > > Rossi is remarkably successful at choosing observers who do not ask > any difficult questions, or request any embarrassing measurements. > > Rossi has been asked difficult questions by the observers, how could > Cude know that he hasn't? The physicist-observers have said that > Rossi's theory doesn't make sense. They are't buying it at all. But > they are also not denying the evidence, and, yes, Rossi probably is > not selecting people who might pull a Feynman. > > (I sat with Feynman at Cal Tech, and love the late physicist, but he > made a horrible mistake one day. He was witnessing a demonstration of > a claimed energy device, and he surreptitiously pulled the plug, > attempting to show that the claimed energy was coming from the mains. > The thing exploded, and a man was killed. Recent news can give us a > clue as to the hazards of removing power from the control mechanisms > in an energy device. It's called Fukashima.) > > Such questions have been repeatedly pointed out in online forums from > the first January experiment: check and *monitor* input flow rate; > monitor the output flow rate; check dependence of steam temperature on > input flow rate (in particular, why is it always pinned at the boiling > point, when if it were dry, it would likely climb well above the bp). > It seems impossible that the 3 Swedes could not have been familiar > with these objections, and yet they made no attempt to resolve them. > > Cude thinks he's cute. Lots of variations have been proposed, but a > central problem here is that Rossi really doesn't care whether he > proves this thing or not. That must drive some skeptics up the wall! > The best test approach, to my mind, was where the flow rate was > increased so that the water didn't boil, thus avoiding the whole wet > steam/dry steam issue. Quantity of water vaporized is a very simply > calorimetric technique, but when we are trying to rule out fraud > (which wasn't the goal of the January demonstration), there are lots > of possible problems. Reducing the flow rate, so that all that is > being measured is temperature rise in a known volume of water, is much > cleaner. That was the February test, which was witnessed only by Levi. > It was a stunning result, in fact, but, of course, we are depending on > Levi not colluding with Rossi. > > My view is that "fraud" can't be completely ruled out. But it's > getting preposterous as a claim. Kullander? Come on! > > Oddly, they measure the temperature every few seconds during the > boiling phase, even though temperature isn’t expected to change during > a 6-fold increase in power, but they don’t measure the flow rate of > the output gas, which would actually change in proportion to the > output power, thereby providing some evidence of the power increase. > Instead they make one or two “visual” inspections of this far more > critical metric. > > He's talking about one demonstration as if this were the whole banana. > > So, the public has not seen any evidence that steam is dry, nor that > the device is producing excess heat. > > Except for expert testimony. What Cude expects absolutely won't be > available for quite some time, unless Rossi changes his mind, and he's > not likely to do so. This is one very persistant man, however we slice > it. > > Until critical observation is permitted by any interested party, there > seems no point in trying to understand what they *claim* is happening. > > Now, here, I'm going to agree with Cude. Speculation on the mechanism > by with the Rossi device generates power is, to some extent, a fool's > errand, since so much information is missing. We may have some better > analyses of the fuel and ash soon. But that evidence might also be > withheld, since the "secret catalyst" is crucial proprietary > information. > > On the other hand, I do know that many LENR researchers have changed > course and are now investigating Ni-H reactions, which, before Rossi, > were considered an unlikely bypath, even though there were reported > results (Focardi and Piantelli). > > And it is not necessary to reveal the contents of Rossi’s black box. > Just allow critics any critics to measure in arbitrary detail the > incoming and outgoing fluids and electrical power. > > Well, that's been done, actually. Cude should become more familiar > with the full range of evidence. It will, however, always be possible > to make up some fraud mechanism, until there are so many independent > replications that it becomes completely impossible. If I have an E-Cat > rated for, say, 10 kW, and I can buy it and use it to heat water in my > home, for a few thousand dollars, it will either work or it won't, and > if it works, given the apparent size of these things, it's nuclear. > The really big issue is going to be safety, and Cude completely misses > this: > > But the best evidence that the thing doesn’t produce excess power is > the fact that it can’t power itself. > > But, apparently, it can. The problem is that controlling it, fully > self-powered, is very difficult, they have not engineered it for that > yet. There is only one access, at this point, to reaction control, > which is controlling the temperature of the reactor. If you allow the > thing to self-power, what controls the reactor temperature? Apparently > the reaction rate increases with temperature, at least over some > range. So my guess is that the control electronics heat the reaction > chamber to below the self-powering range, it needs a few hundred watts > of power to maintain the reaction rate, so that when you turn off the > power, it shuts down. This raises a host of safety issues! > > (The other control mechanism would be to control the hydrogen feed. > How well that would work is far from clear to me, without knowing the > mechanism! But experiment would provide the evidence. Rossi almost > certainly knows this, and it's in his interest at this point to be > several steps ahead of the crowd that's dogging him. Believe me, his > big worry isn't the skeptics, they can go jump in a lake as far as > he's concerned.) > > (And if he's a fraud, this will all be over, I predict, by the end of > the year. It won't be possible to maintain.) > > When a salesman comes to your door selling a new source of energy, and > the first thing he asks is where to plug it in, be very suspicious. > > If a salesman comes to my door selling about anything, I'll be > suspicious. But, Joshua, what about Fukashima? Do you think that the > reactor there needed to be "plugged in" -- for safety -- meant that > the energy produced was doubtful? > > If the salesman can demonstrate a volume of hot water heated, showing > 12 kW of power being generated (repeated buckets of a certain volume > at a certain temperature, fed with tap water at a certain > temperature), and this thing doesn't blow fuses, I don't care if it's > plugged in. Yeah, there are still a few things to check. > > But no salesman is knocking on my door or Cude's door, selling E-Cats. > If one came today I'd toss him out on his ear. This is all polemic, > designed to ridicule. Typical Cude. > > An analogy to Cude's objection. Someone comes to my door to sell me a > portable gas stove, I can use it, he claims, to cook and heat water > while I'm camping. To demonstrate it to me, he asks me for a match, he > left his at home. I toss him out, since, if it needs a match, it must > be a fraud. > > > Rich Murray: Lomax: " I pointed out that.we won't know *absolutely > for sure* until there are multiple fully independent replications or > verifications.....My view is that "fraud" can't be completely ruled > out..... It has been pointed out that a fraud could use different > mechanisms in different demonstrations, and, in my view, there is no > end of this possibility, until and unless fully independent > verification is possible.....And it is not necessary to reveal the > contents of Rossi’s black box. Just allow critics any critics to > measure in arbitrary detail the incoming and outgoing fluids and > electrical power....." > > Lomax is actually agreeing that after over 4 busy months since January > 15, the reality of massive excess heat from Rossi reactors is still > not beyond reasonable dispute. This is prudent, thoughtful, informed > skepticism. > > I agree, and add that apparent deliberate fraud can also result from > individual illness, coupled with group think. > > I agree also with Cude's evaluation that there is no replicable > evidence for any form of cold fusion since 1989: > > Joshua Cude says: > May 22, 2011 at 8:21 am > > “because the measured helium correlates very well, at the expected value > for deuterium -> helium; this was known by the mid-1990s. It’s a > reproducible and reproduced experiment, see Storms, Status of cold fusion > (2010), Naturwissenschaften.” > > This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. A correlation between > heat and helium is clearly an important and definitive experiment for > cold fusion. And yet, in the referenced paper, the most recent > peer-reviewed results used to demonstrate such a correlation come from > a set of experiments by Miles in the early 90s. These were very crude > experiments in which peaks were eyeballed as small, medium, and large, > the small taken as equal to the detection limit (which seemed to > change by orders of magnitude over the years). Even in the best of > Miles results, the energy per helium varies by more than a factor of > 3. Miles’ results were severely criticized by Jones in peer-reviewed > literature. And although there was considerable back and forth on the > results, and in Storms view (of course) Miles successfully defended > his claims, that kind of disagreement and large variation simply cries > out for new and better experiments. So what have we got since? > > A very careful set of experiments looking for helium by Gozzi, which > was published in peer-reviewed literature in 1998, concludes that the > evidence for helium is not definitive. > > The only results since Miles that Storms has deemed worthwhile to > calculate energy correlation come from conference proceedings, and the > most recent of those from year 2000. Nothing that Storms considers > adequate quality in this critically important experiment has met the > standard of peer review. And they’re not good enough to allow Miles > results to be replaced; Storms still uses some of Miles results, one > assumes because it improves the average. The error in the result, even > if you accept Storms’ cherry-picked, dubious analysis is still 20%. On > an experiment that removes the dependence on material quality. Heat, > it is claimed, can be measured to mW, the helium, it is claimed, is > orders of magnitude above the detection limit, and yet the errors are > huge. > > This is what passes for conclusive in the field of cold fusion. This > is good enough that no measurements of helium-heat in the last decade > entered Storms’ calculations. > > An objective look at the heat/helium results does not provide even > weak evidence for cold fusion. > > Reply > Joshua Cude says: > May 22, 2011 at 8:36 am > >The original report of neutrons was artifact. The recent reports are at > levels vastly lower, but well above background. > > Presumably you are referring to the CR-39 results, but these have been > observed by one group only, and the results have been challenged as to > whether they are in fact above background, and/or caused by artifacts. > A project led by Krivit with a number of groups involved, and > pretentiously named the Galileo project, failed to confirm the CR-39 > results. > > So even these results, which in any case cannot explain the claimed > heat, are far from convincing. > > Cold fusion experiments simply never get past marginal, controversial, > and dubious. There is not a single convincing experiment in cold > fusion, period. And Rossi has not changed that picture at all. > [ End of Cude quotes ] > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
