Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Jay, Excellent idea - could even use off the shelf heat exchanger as your link seems to indicate they already have their brazed products in automotive and aerospace equipment. I like the idea of the heat transfer fluid being inside the exchanger with the sputtered powder on the outside and using a large hydrogen supply tube around the entire exchanger which would function as the reactor. I think this would greatly increase the surface area and number of ultra active sites. I noticed you are still sugggesting filling the reactor tube with powder around the heat sink in addition to the coated surface of the heat sink. My original thought was to do away with bulk powder entirely but after reconsideration think you may also have gotten that right, Previous discussions about there being a certain critical volume of powder and spill over catalysts may mean the thin surface does have to be part of a larger volume for OOP and free running operation. Maybe the MAHG device should have been filled with powder as well? Fran On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:04: Jay Caplan wrote Fran, If you could sputter the powder surface onto the fins of a brazed heat exchanger http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/finbraze--2/item-1010? http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/finbraze--2/item-1010?for ward=1 forward=1 then the H2 could be inputted through a tube surrounding the finned exchanger (with an outer lead pipe shield if there actually is gamma to deal with.) The heat transfer fluid running through the center tube - center tube welded to the outer tube at the ends to maintain H2 pressure. Brazed fins for continuous duty to 950 F. But it might be easier to have square fins with ~1-2 mm between them, and the adjacent two fins brazed closed on 3 sides. http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/stamped-plate-fin/item-1015 ? http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/stamped-plate-fin/item-101 5?forward=1 forward=1 Fill the top side with the nanopowders, vibrate to settle, H2 still loads from the outer tube. ???
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Hello group, Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. However Dr.Bianchini from the University of Bologna had special permission to witness one on June 14th: * * * http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=21#comment-47097 June 19th, 2011 at 4:12 AM Dear Italo A. Albanese: Thank you for your insight: as you know, I cannot give information about what happens inside the reactor. To work without a drive is very dangerous, anyway, in my lab I am making with a reactor 14 kWh/h without energu input, but, again it is very dangerous. When I make this I have to be alone on the reactor, even if on the 14th of june in Bologna I did this for about 1 hour at the presence of Dr Bianchini, of the University of Bologna, asking him to check the radiations outside the reactor: the Gieger I always work with had an increase of emission, but it turned out that we were inside the acceptable limits. Bu it is out of question that I can accept to use the reactors this way in public or for the Customers. To be safe, totally safe, we must have a drive and we must not exceed the factor of 6 (I mean producing 6 rimes the energy consumed by the drive). Which is what we guarantee to our Customers. Warm Regards, A.R. * * * To tell the truth, I imagined that remote control and monitoring of Energy Catalyzers working in potentially dangerous conditions in a safe room would have been the norm. Or, at least, that's what I would do. In motoring engineering that's what is usually done when stress testing or setting up engines on a dynamometer test bed in controlled conditions. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
I think the fact that Levi was caught telling a white lie about a report that does not exist is certainly news since it brings into question Levi's trustworthiness. If he was caught lying about the existence of that Galantini report, what else is he lying about? If you read the comments section of Steve Krivit's preliminary report blog, you'll see a comment by Steve in which he says that Rossi said during an interview this week that there is no Galantini report. Perhaps report and data were confused by Levi, with the language barrier causing confusion? If they would provide the data regarding the steam measurements, this whole issue could be put to rest. I am beginning to wonder why we are even taking Rossi and Levi seriously? Big claims and no supporting credible data. What category does that put them in? On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: Why Levi is upset is more evident in this exchange between Steven Krivit and Luigi Versaggi P. https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/cold-fusion-andrea-rossi-method/i-made-a-question-to-steven-krivit/235485236468276 If I recall correctly someone wrote on the vortex list back in feburary or march that Galantini never wrote a report, so that fact is not news. Steven Kirvit managed to catch Levi uttering a 'white lie' to *him*. Is that fact news? Harry
[Vo]:Message and INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY Nr 460
Dear Friends, It was a rather interesting week for the E-cat, due to the steam dryness dispute between Krivit and Rossi Levi. We could see that the E-cat has very sharp verbal claws if infuriated. *The visit has not put doubts on the functionality* *of the E-cat, but raised serious questions* *regarding its Market Readiness.(my opinion)* This is, first of all the problem of the Defkalion company and I hope that their press conference from 23 June will be well organized and we will get a better and more optimistic vision about the future of E-cat.They willbe in the frontline. My deepest empathy for the Defkalion people, they are at the interface of the E-cats and the commercial reality. It is Sunday, threfore please read the issu 460 of my newsletter and please help it to achieve popularity. http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/06/informavores-sunday-no-460.html A great space for discoveries, a lot of useful information. I wish you a good Greek Week of the E-cat! Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
On 11-06-18 10:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-18 09:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert. Jed is right about sparging the steam. Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway? There are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow. OK, you asked for it, somebody should say it. We've all been dancing around it, but it hasn't quite been said in so many words, so here it is: It's a lot easier to produce phony results which look good when you do it with a phase change of this sort. Flow calorimetry with single-phase water is a lot harder to fool. There, I said it, now you can claim I'm being pathologically skeptical and psychotically paranoid -- and I'll apologize profusely and eat every word of it, when ... and if ... this thing is finally either REPLICATED or COMMERCIALIZED. But right now, IMO it smells, and it's smelled all along, and smelly stuff hardly ever turns out to be pure gold. If you were Rossi the businessman, and you knew your device has turned water into steam for short periods of time without any input power, wouldn't you treat the steam quality issue as a minor concern? You're apparently speculating as to what Rossi might have been thinking in an effort to explain the obvious fact that he structured the experiment in a way that would make it easy to obfuscate the output power, and then lied about the steam quality to do just that. Perhaps your defense of him is right, and perhaps it's wrong -- I can't read his mind, and have no interest in trying.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
On 11-06-19 05:34 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Hello group, Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. This is such a facile explanation ... We mustn't unplug it from the wall because that would be dangerous. How many reactions, which produce heat, and which may produce runaway heat, can be quenched by ... *heating them up* ? That's the claim, as far as I can tell: He has to have a heater attached to it (which can, after all, only do what a heater does, which is heat it up) so that it can be heated up to prevent it from getting too hot, which would be dangerous. I would call that another big red flag.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
How many reactions, which produce heat, and which may produce runaway heat, can be quenched by ... *heating them up* ? I would call that another big red flag. I hope this thing is not a fake; I am just barely over the trauma of the Steorn debacle.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
On 2011-06-19 14:08, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: How many reactions, which produce heat, and which may produce runaway heat, can be quenched by ... *heating them up* ? To be fair, I don't think this is what Rossi actually means. Self-sustaining reactors probably operate on a closed loop, heated by the same steam (which I assume would be in high-pressure superheated conditions) they heat themselves. I suppose Rossi et al. don't have yet a quick, safe and reliable way to stop a thermal runaway, especially if devices are left operating unattended. When devices are plugged to the wall, it would be instead sufficient to simply switch off electrical power. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Fran, Your point even better. Use round fins ~2 mm apart brazed to the center heat transfer fluid tube. Center tube brazed to bottom cap which has a hole for center tube, this brazed as well. Would use copper tubing for all these tubes and fins, standard plumbing parts. Fill from upper side with powder, vibrate to fill all the gaps between fins, then braze the upper cap onto the outer tube, and braze the center tube to the hole in the upper cap. That would be a sealed reactor, ready to plumb into the cooling fluid pathway. H2 inlet to the outer tube. They could slide a lead pipe over the outer tube if needed for gamma. Gas heat the heat transfer fluid and temps would rise slowly thoughout, when it starts reacting, turn off gas heat, and increase fluid flow to maintain safe efficient temps. Also, think Jones had it quoting that study on the highese H bonding with the, was it 70/30 Ni/Cu alloy powders? I think we need more discussion on the Fe from rust role. - Original Message - From: francis To: uniqueprodu...@comcast.net Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 1:23 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy Jay,Excellent idea - could even use off the shelf heat exchanger as your link seems to indicate they already have their brazed products in automotive and aerospace equipment. I like the idea of the heat transfer fluid being inside the exchanger with the sputtered powder on the outside and using a large hydrogen supply tube around the entire exchanger which would function as the reactor. I think this would greatly increase the surface area and number of ultra active sites. I noticed you are still sugggesting filling the reactor tube with powder around the heat sink in addition to the coated surface of the heat sink. My original thought was to do away with bulk powder entirely but after reconsideration think you may also have gotten that right, Previous discussions about there being a certain critical volume of powder and spill over catalysts may mean the thin surface does have to be part of a larger volume for OOP and free running operation. Maybe the MAHG device should have been filled with powder as well?FranOn Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:04: Jay Caplan wroteFran,If you could sputter the powder surface onto the fins of a brazed heat exchanger http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/finbraze--2/item-1010?forward=1 then the H2 could be inputted through a tube surrounding the finned exchanger (with an outer lead pipe shield if there actually is gamma to deal with.) The heat transfer fluid running through the center tube - center tube welded to the outer tube at the ends to maintain H2 pressure. Brazed fins for continuous duty to 950 F. But it might be easier to have square fins with ~1-2 mm between them, and the adjacent two fins brazed closed on 3 sides. http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/stamped-plate-fin/item-1015?forward=1 Fill the top side with the nanopowders, vibrate to settle, H2 still loads from the outer tube. ???
FW: Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Stephen, I think you might be missing the point, in free running the OOP is AT the critical temperature and the heat sinking must be exactly balanced between quenching and runaway while normal operation is kept slightly below the critical temperature such that a PWM can push the material into critical behavior for a certain duty factor knowing the cooling loop is already operating at a rate which will pull the device back under critical simply by reducing the PRF or duty factor of the heater. Fran ON Sun, 19 Jun 2011 05:11:00 Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: [snip] ---snip-- On 11-06-19 05:34 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: - Hello group, Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. --/snip-- This is such a facile explanation ... We mustn't unplug it from the wall because that would be dangerous. How many reactions, which produce heat, and which may produce runaway heat, can be quenched by ... *heating them up* ? That's the claim, as far as I can tell: He has to have a heater attached to it (which can, after all, only do what a heater does, which is heat it up) so that it can be heated up to prevent it from getting too hot, which would be dangerous. I would call that another big red flag.
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Coupled with the admission that the steam was wet (which has seemed pretty obvious to me for quite a while, though, as I've said before, I'm no expert) this makes Galantini's assertions about steam look pretty unreliable. 1. I do not see them admitting any such thing. 2. It cannot be obvious to you because you were not there and you have not used instruments or done tests to measure the enthalpy of the steam. Yes, anyone can see that the short video uploaded recently shows wet steam, but that was probably far away from the machine, and the steam was probably cooled. You have to measure a short distance from the reactor core, which is what Galantini reportedly did. 3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that the first test was right plus or minus ~10%. The speculation here that the steam might have had 20 times less enthalpy than claimed (or 1000 times less) is preposterous and totally unfounded. It is a shame that details about the second test have not been released, but there is no reason to doubt these results are real. Rossi does not wish to make an effort to convince people his machine is real. He has *said that*, repeatedly. When I asked for the opportunity to go there and test the steam quality, and also to run more liquid phase flow calorimetry, he firmly turned me down. He did not want me to do that. Perhaps this is because he does not trust that I have sufficient expertise. But I don't think that's the reason. I think he would have told me: you are not qualified. He is a very frank.He said emphatically he wants no more tests before the 1 MW demonstration. I think that policy is ill-advised. I do not understand it. But it is his decision, and I suppose he has his reasons. He also said he is too busy to do a test with my instruments. That is understandable. It takes all day. It is more involved than the quick show-and-tell demonstration he did for Krivit. I have no problem being told: I cannot spare a whole day to help you. I do not know what Krivit expected to see or whether he discussed the agenda before he left. Frankly, if he wanted to see reports from Levi or Galantini, he should have asked for those reports before buying the airplane ticket. As I said, I always try to learn what it is I will do before I set off on a trip. Rossi told me he would only be willing to do the kind of quick demonstration he did for Krivit. I did not wish to go all the way to Italy to see that. I told Rossi no thank you, and there were no hard feelings. If people do not wish to share data, there is no point to being confrontational. In my case, there is no point to going. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway? There are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow. I think Levi and Rossi did the private flow test in feburary to really convince themselves, and not to the arm chair skeptics, that their initial steam tests were adequate. That's right. That is my impression of why they did that. They said that the second test proves the first one was right. I agree. As I said, I was hoping they would publish a better description of that test, including details such as the type of flow meter and graphs of the data. I was expecting they would. It is disappointing that they have not. Their preliminary report was fine as far as it went, but I wish they had published more. They may yet do that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
Ooops, overlooked something in your message. On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: 3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that the first test was right No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented. It was viewed, in private, by exactly the people whose earlier results I'm suspicious of, and they told us everything is fine, don't worry. That's like a poker game where nobody has to show their cards, they just state what they have and everyone believes them. The honor system isn't used in poker, and it doesn't get you very far in science, either.
[Vo]:Steven Chu
http://the-explorer.com/steven-chu-looks-at-lattice-assisted-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion/2011/3429583.html/ It *suggests* that Steven Chu was at the MIT meeting. But it clearly *states* that he is looking at Cold Fusion. Anyone has a link supporting the last claim? Thanks! Bastiaan.
Re: [Vo]:Steven Chu
This appears to be bunk. See this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47764.html T On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Bastiaan Bergman bastiaan.berg...@gmail.com wrote: http://the-explorer.com/steven-chu-looks-at-lattice-assisted-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion/2011/3429583.html/ It *suggests* that Steven Chu was at the MIT meeting. But it clearly *states* that he is looking at Cold Fusion. Anyone has a link supporting the last claim? Thanks! Bastiaan.
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: 1. I do not see them admitting any such thing. 2. It cannot be obvious to you because you were not there and you have not used instruments or done tests to measure the enthalpy of the steam. It was obvious from the output temperature curves and description of the experiment. It cannot be that obvious, since the physicists at U. Bologna disagree. Those people may be wrong but they are not amateurs or fools. An independent expert analysis of these temperatures was recently published showing that the steam was most dry, based on the temperatures alone. I don't recall where that analysis is . . . Maybe 22passi? I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Oh come now. Don't make false accusations. I admitted fully and frankly that I made a mistake there. I always do. I have many faults, but refusing to admit mistakes is not among them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: 3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that the first test was right No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented. I said that too. Only a few details were released. If you believe these details, then the second test conclusively confirmed the first. If you don't believe those few details then obviously you cannot agree with the conclusions. I heard a few more details about the test than have been released, so I have somewhat more confidence. I was expecting they would publish all that they told me, and more. As I said, I am disappointed they have not. It is unprofessional. It was viewed, in private, by exactly the people whose earlier results I'm suspicious of, and they told us everything is fine, don't worry. You can be suspicious of the results, but you have no reason to be suspicious of the people themselves. That is to say, you might suspect they are mistaken, but you have no reason to think they are lying. I don't anyway. Given the simplicity of liquid phase flow calorimetry there is no reason to doubt they got that right. That's like a poker game where nobody has to show their cards, they just state what they have and everyone believes them. In poker, you do not have to show your card if everyone else folds. That's how it works in industrial RD as well. The honor system isn't used in poker, and it doesn't get you very far in science, either. This is not exactly science. It is more like industrial RD, where the rules are different. That's unfortunate, but that's the way things are. Fortunately, Rossi is forging ahead with development and with cooperation the Defkalion, so even though this is not academic science, we are likely to learn the full details and we are likely to see convincing proof eventually. - Jed
[Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
...Or at least, this is what Rossi is implying in the comment below pasted from his blog. It looks like we will know more details about it after the presentation of the 1-MW plant in October. Rossi paints a grim picture where LENR researchers backstab each other in order to obtain research funds and exclusivity rights. Very sad if true. Let's hope it's just confabulation following his anger outburst. * * * http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=8#comment-47160 June 19th, 2011 at 9:17 AM Dear Staffan: Your comment opens the space to an intriguing consideration. Many Scientists have taken the correct approach: wait for the 1 MW plant in operation, then make due considerations. This is what smart People did. About pseudo-Scientists and their reaction to my Effect: probably you have read of the “Snake” report after an interview he made in Bologna. Now, as probably most of you have understood, we have very good , (VERY GOOD), intelligence working with us; after the “snake” (disguised as a journalist) who has this week penetrated our organization and made a report based on a fake steam diagram, we asked to our intellicence organization to probe what was behind, and we discovered that: 1- The fake diagram of steam has been given to the “snake” from an Italian competitor that is afraid to lose the funds due to the fact that the taxpayers are tired to give him money while we have reached results without any funding 2- this Italian clown has been given the fake diagram fro an American Laboratory, competing with us, which gave it to him for the same reason 3- the snake has been sent to us to try to dwarf us to allow them to get funding All this is very funny. The names and the particulars of this paper tigers will be explained from me as an anecdote after the start up of the 1 MW plant in Greece: after the start up, after the explication of the theory, this will be the dessert. Something to laugh with. Warm Regards, A.R. * * * Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam
At 06:13 PM 6/18/2011, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: From Rossi, ... ... For example, we had recently a fake journalist here who wrote stupidities about the water in the steam: ... I guess Rossi is still pissed off. For many years, since I first started on-line conferencing as it was called then, on the W.E.L.L., I was fascinated by the possibility of reviewing the record of some conflict and finding its etiology. I'd done some prior work with tapes of meetings where a conflict had erupted. Generally, what the record showed wasn't what some of the participants thought. They were reacting to, not what had actually been said, but how they had, themselves, interpreted it In Landmark terms, they had collapsed what had happened with the story about what happened. Then new stories are often created based on the original stories, etc. We can't disentangle what actually happened between Krivit and Rossi, or Krivit and Levi (but Krivit may have audio recordings). But Rossi is here talking about what Krivit wrote, which was merely a preliminary travel report, more about the questions raised than any negative conclusions. It wasn't particularly stupid. Rossi isn't careful, that we can see. He's just reacting to how he feels, and Levi as well, and blaming and criticizing without any foundation. Krivit is not a fake journalist. Readers of this list know that many of us have, shall we say, issues with Krivit. But he is certainly not what Rossi is claiming, he is a real investigator, if opinionated at times. The issue about water in the steam is one which has raised wide concern about the demonstrations, and not just from pseudoskeptics. It's a real issue. It may well be that Rossi and others know things that rule out the problem, but Rossi must understand that, since he is not sharing with the world what he knows, only selected snippets, his claims have *not* been publically demonstrated. He's right, if he gets the Defkalion installation going, if it works, this is largely moot. But it is not moot yet. He has no obligation to explain or demonstrate anything. However, he does have an obligation to treat others with decency and respect, and he's failing that obligation, a human one. He could apologize. What would he lose if he did? Nothing that I can see!
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam
Rossi: About all the others, honestly, I do not care too much, they are either competitors, sometimes disguised as Research Laboratories anxious to validate, fake journalists sent by the same, or just honest sceptic who are not important for our market. Our universal credibility will come from our working plants that we will sell to our Customers. He's certainly got a very bad case of Chris Tinsley's inventor's disease or he's faking. His mention now of totally dry steam has clearly been made because of Steve K's visit. It has been made to forestall further criticism of/investigation on this point. Big smelly red flags! The bit about universal credibility coming from working units sold commercially raises another red flag to those of us who have seen many such promises before. It could not be red flaggier unless he mentioned shipping devices... Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
On 11-06-19 12:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: 1. I do not see them admitting any such thing. 2. It cannot be obvious to you because you were not there and you have not used instruments or done tests to measure the enthalpy of the steam. It was obvious from the output temperature curves and description of the experiment. It cannot be that obvious, since the physicists at U. Bologna disagree. Those people may be wrong but they are not amateurs or fools. An independent expert analysis of these temperatures was recently published showing that the steam was most dry, based on the temperatures alone. I don't recall where that analysis is . . . Maybe 22passi? I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Oh come now. Don't make false accusations. I admitted fully and frankly that I made a mistake there. It's not a false accusation. Getting that admission was like pulling teeth, and even then it was a qualified admission. Don't make me search the archives to prove it.
Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
On 2011-06-19 18:05, Terry Blanton wrote: Anyone have any idea what he means here? I do not recall a diagram. Is he speaking of a water phase graph? Yes, I think he's speaking of a water phase graph they (i.e. him and Levi) have been shown, although privately as of yet. Perhaps the witnesses present during the visit will be able to shed some light on this at some point in the near future. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: 1- The fake diagram of steam has been given to the “snake” Anyone have any idea what he means here? I do not recall a diagram. Is he speaking of a water phase graph? T
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: Coupled with the admission that the steam was wet (which has seemed pretty obvious to me for quite a while, though, as I've said before, I'm no expert) this makes Galantini's assertions about steam look pretty unreliable. 1. I do not see them admitting any such thing. 2. It cannot be obvious to you because you were not there and you have not used instruments or done tests to measure the enthalpy of the steam. It was obvious from the output temperature curves and description of the experiment. I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure.
[Vo]:We Need to Stop Lying!
As with most alleged conspiracies. People with similar interests naturally do the same things. It is just plain old-fashioned non-orchestrated Self-interest. While on the topic, yes there really are people who conspire to pull a lot of strings, but the diversity of their individual self-interests probably negates their influence to quite a degree. The Truth! The Powerful Interest are sitting precariously on top of an enormously unstable human pyramid. You and I are the ones holding them up!!! The number one ally they have is most of us How??? At the end of the day, our lie is the only thing they have going for them!!! The Lie WHEN WE PROMOTE THE LIE THAT THEY ARE ALL-POWERFUL AND WE ARE POWERLESS TO ORGANIZE EFFECTIVELY AGAINST THEM! (Not shouting, just excited!!!) The Tried and True Solution: They are woosies compared to the tyrannies our ancestors dealt with! They overthrew the Inquisition, the general civic authority of the Roman Church, the Aristocracy, dictatorships, Communism in Eastern Europe (more or less!) radical Islam's days are numbered---its still happening, Aristotle and other foolish traditions and superstitions. The Scientific Revolution has taken off. Industrialization overcame the power of the craft-guilds. Our society has devoted itself to questioning everything. There is much less of the fallacy of appealing to authority. We can change our paradigm from value based on contrived scarcity to valuing abundance. We can overthrow the Special Interest of our day. My point is this: we, as their children have a rich inheritance that resounds with the words WE CAN! I have very carefully worked out the details on exactly how this can really be done. I have mapped out a strategy that will really decapitate special interests from the political process. A small group of people will have to work their butts off recruiting even just a few more people--with years of toil and no visible result. The Sheeple will have nothing to say about it except BD Bd! At some point the still-small group will reach a critical-mass. They will look like ordinary Sheeple so when they start moving out in a new direction, more and more people will suddenly stand up and move out with them. Historically, nearly every major movement that seemed spontaneous was rooted in this sort of process. We had an Off-Year World's Fair in Spokane in 1974 (I had just turned 17). You had to stand in line up to half an hour just to use the toilet! My buddies and I were sitting around bored one day, (we all had season passes.) Suddenly, inspiration hit! I jumped up and proclaimed: We need just one-more line (one more queue.) --A line that goes to nowhere!!! We found a door and watched to make sure it never opened, recruited just a few more people and started the line. The fact that the line was the shortest in the Park added to the appeal! We quickly accumulated a line of more than fifty people, then sat back and watched the line perpetuate itself for about two hours, until the officials noticed and told everyone! Fortunately, my current line (queue) will actually take us somewhere! Some early-comers will join us because we are small and avante guarde (spelling?) more will join because it's becoming fashionable, yet more will join because it is then fashionable! The moral of the story is this, sheeple follow other sheeple, they also follow radicals disguised as sheeple. The trick is to recruit the first wonderers---people who think for themselves are few and far between--but they can be gathered together if even a small seed group is willing to work long and hard. President Kennedy said: Others look at the way the World is and ask: Why? But I look at things that have never been and ask Why Not?. Please read my papers. I have labored very hard to work out many vital details. z-pec.yolasite.comRead the Links under Populistocracy. ScottWm. Scott SmithUSA+ five zero nine, three one five, one one nine four Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 12:05:46 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect From: hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: 1- The fake diagram of steam has been given to the “snake” Anyone have any idea what he means here? I do not recall a diagram. Is he speaking of a water phase graph? T
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
On 2011-06-19 02:37, Harry Veeder wrote: If I recall correctly someone wrote on the vortex list back in feburary or march that Galantini never wrote a report, so that fact is not news. Steven Kirvit managed to catch Levi uttering a 'white lie' to *him*. Is that fact news? Try read the following comment by Rossi. It might explain what happened. Somehow I missed it. * * * Andrea Rossi June 18th, 2011 at 4:02 AM “Rossi Responds to Scrutiny of his Claims”: The content of water in steam is always measured in mass, not in volume, because psychrometers work is based on the heat necessary to the evaporation ow residual water, and the heat is given in Joule/g, wherein g means grams. Krivit is not convinced only because has not the elementary knowledge of the physics involved. He had all the necessary explications from us, just did not (or wanted not) to understand. By the way: in a statement he released further, he said that while Prof. Levi told him there was a report about this issue, I said in the interview that there was not a report about this issue. This is a translation problem: with the term “report” I mean an extensive paper, while Prof. Levi referred to the simple communication that we received from the specialist who made the measurement, in which there were just the results. This is a misunderstanding, not a contradiction. Warm Regards, A.R. * * * By the way, there are two new blogposts on New Energy Times. I found the message by Rossi above in the first link below: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/19/rossis-responses-to-preliminary-report/ http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/19/levis-response-to-preliminary-report/ Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Rossi adds externally generated heat to reach and maintain steady state heat production equilibrium. One passive way to decrease reactor heat production is to decrease hydrogen pressure. This can be done by absorbing hydrogen from the hydrogen envelope using a hydride producing metal; for example, titanium. Provide an amount of titanium powder in a dedicated chamber separated from the main reaction chamber by a thermally regulated pressure valve. As the heat increases, hydrogen is removed from the reaction chamber using the passive pressure relief valve. A titanium hydride will be produced and hydrogen will be stored. To get the reaction going again, heat the titanium hydride powder to liberate hydrogen. This will get the pressure of the hydrogen envelope back up to self-sustaining levels. As long as the passive pressure relief valve is working, a melt down and resulting hydrogen explosion will not occur. On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2011-06-19 14:08, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: How many reactions, which produce heat, and which may produce runaway heat, can be quenched by ... *heating them up* ? To be fair, I don't think this is what Rossi actually means. Self-sustaining reactors probably operate on a closed loop, heated by the same steam (which I assume would be in high-pressure superheated conditions) they heat themselves. I suppose Rossi et al. don't have yet a quick, safe and reliable way to stop a thermal runaway, especially if devices are left operating unattended. When devices are plugged to the wall, it would be instead sufficient to simply switch off electrical power. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Please add at this top as an edit... Rossi runs his reactor subcritically. That is, the maximum amount of heat that his reactor can produce will NOT increase internal reactor heat production beyond a self-reinforcing increasing takeoff point. On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi adds externally generated heat to reach and maintain steady state heat production equilibrium. One passive way to decrease reactor heat production is to decrease hydrogen pressure. This can be done by absorbing hydrogen from the hydrogen envelope using a hydride producing metal; for example, titanium. Provide an amount of titanium powder in a dedicated chamber separated from the main reaction chamber by a thermally regulated pressure valve. As the heat increases, hydrogen is removed from the reaction chamber using the passive pressure relief valve. A titanium hydride will be produced and hydrogen will be stored. To get the reaction going again, heat the titanium hydride powder to liberate hydrogen. This will get the pressure of the hydrogen envelope back up to self-sustaining levels. As long as the passive pressure relief valve is working, a melt down and resulting hydrogen explosion will not occur. On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-06-19 14:08, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: How many reactions, which produce heat, and which may produce runaway heat, can be quenched by ... *heating them up* ? To be fair, I don't think this is what Rossi actually means. Self-sustaining reactors probably operate on a closed loop, heated by the same steam (which I assume would be in high-pressure superheated conditions) they heat themselves. I suppose Rossi et al. don't have yet a quick, safe and reliable way to stop a thermal runaway, especially if devices are left operating unattended. When devices are plugged to the wall, it would be instead sufficient to simply switch off electrical power. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam
Nick Palmer ni...@wynterwood.co.uk wrote: He's certainly got a very bad case of Chris Tinsley's inventor's disease or he's faking. His mention now of totally dry steam has clearly been made because of Steve K's visit.. . . Rossi does show some symptoms of that syndrome, but there is a TREMENDOUS difference between him and people with a genuine case of the Inventor's Disease. Rossi has demonstrated his machines (albeit mainly in private) and he has signed agreements with legitimate companies and transferred his knowledge to them. He has taken many steps to ensure that the technology will be commercialized. Defkalion is a serious company with serious money and talent. I believe they will begin selling machines this year or early next year. We must not forget this difference! A person suffering from terminal stage Inventor's Disease feels compelled to hide the technology from the world, and take it to the grave. Many people have done that. I think in most cases their discoveries were mistakes, or had a prosaic explanation, but some may have been real. Rossi is hard to get along with. (By the way, I believe I popularized the expression Inventor's Disease in the context of cold fusion. It has been around for decades. Probably it has been around since people invented the first tools, as shown in the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey. It is remarkable they had such good cameras back then!) It has been made to forestall further criticism of/investigation on this point. Big smelly red flags! The bit about universal credibility coming from working units sold commercially raises another red flag to those of us who have seen many such promises before. It could not be red flaggier unless he mentioned shipping devices... You need not worry about that. Rossi is not claiming that he will be selling commercially. Defkalion says they will be. I believe them. You will be able to judge this issue yourself after the June 23 press conference. You will be able to see that conference on YouTube and I am expecting two reports from participants, so we should get good coverage. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Generally, what the record showed wasn't what some of the participants thought. They were reacting to, not what had actually been said, but how they had, themselves, interpreted it In Landmark terms, they had collapsed what had happened with the story about what happened. Then new stories are often created based on the original stories, etc. That is a sharp analysis. He [Rossi] could apologize. What would he lose if he did? Nothing that I can see! It would be out of character. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam
Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: He [Rossi] could apologize. What would he lose if he did? Nothing that I can see! It would be out of character. Yeah, just like Steven Kirvit could apologize for insinuating incompetency. lol. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
At 10:57 PM 6/18/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: If you were Rossi the businessman, and you knew your device has turned water into steam for short periods of time without any input power, wouldn't you treat the steam quality issue as a minor concern? Harry Sure, I might, but I would also understand why others wouldn't be convinced by my mere say-so. My own conclusion is that Rossi was conflicted about the demonstration. If what he's got is real, and given various situations, I suspect he did not want to do a demo at all, too dangerous, for lots of reasons. So he did a half-assed demo. Does he have the ... whatever it takes ... to simply admit that, to say, I understand that reasonable skeptics won't be convinced by what they have seen, and I apologize for my own irritation and intemperate remarks. I assure you all that it will become clear in October. Until then, we'll just have to sit with this. Even if he's thinking: You guys can go yourselves. Or not.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
At 10:57 PM 6/18/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:32:54 -0400: Hi, [snip] It's being operated, apparently, at a balance point. Other designs ...or as Dr. Schwartz would say, an OOP. Well, no, even though I did refer to that term in one place. This isn't what Mitchell calls an OOP. Mitchell's OOP is a point of maximum energy generation, in PdD experiments with reference to input current, whereas in this case, the balance point is below the OOP, which might be anywhere up to the melting point of the fuel.
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
On 11-06-19 12:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: That's like a poker game where nobody has to show their cards, they just state what they have and everyone believes them. In poker, you do not have to show your card if everyone else folds. Sometimes, you do, even then: If you opened the betting, you need to show openers, which is typically a pair of jacks or better. (That's in straight and draw poker, of course. Hold 'em and stud may be a little different.) Nobody gets a free ride, and nothing is done on trust. Fortunately, Rossi is forging ahead with development and with cooperation the Defkalion, so even though this is not academic science, we are likely to learn the full details and we are likely to see convincing proof eventually. Yes. And absolutely nothing I say here has the power to either advance or retard that development. For good or for ill, things have gone far too far for any little argument on this list to derail them. I'd like to add something else, as well. Jed, I have an awful lot of respect for you. The work you've done for the field of LENR has been awesome, and I think it has made a substantial difference. Furthermore, you are enormously knowledgeable, and in many situations I'm willing to treat your opinions as something approaching proof. I feel very uncomfortable arguing with you, particularly when the subject is contentious. In this case, you seem to be completely convinced of the veracity of the claims which have been made. Obviously, I'm not so convinced. However, I really don't want to get into a nasty spat over it, with claims of obvious and absurdity escalating into assertions of blindness, ignorance, and idiocy. So I should probably just Cool It at this point, and say I hope Rossi's device really does work as claimed. If it all turns out well I'll certainly post an apology for having doubted!
RE: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
From Andrea Rossi: June 18th, 2011 at 4:02 AM ... By the way: in a statement he released further, he [Krivit] said that while Prof. Levi told him there was a report about this issue, I said in the interview that there was not a report about this issue. This is a translation problem: with the term report I mean an extensive paper, while Prof. Levi referred to the simple communication that we received from the specialist who made the measurement, in which there were just the results. This is a misunderstanding, not a contradiction. Warm Regards, A.R. Sunday's Sermon These kinds of misinterpretations remind me of something D. Adams once wrote about: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * G'Gugvuntts and Vl'hurgs Two species which existed in the distant past, a very great distance from the Milky Way galaxy. The G'Gugvuntt were enemies of the Vl'hurgs, and these strange and warlike beings are on the brink of an interstellar war, because of an insult uttered by the G'Gugvuntt leader to the mother of the Vl'hurg leader. Resplendent in their black-jeweled battle shorts, they were meeting for the last time, and a dreadful silence filled the air as the Vl'hurg leader was challenging the G'Gugvuntt leader to retract the insult. At the precise moment, the phrase I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle (muttered by Arthur Dent to himself, which for some strange reason was carried by a freak wormhole in space back in time to the farthest regions of the universe where the G'Gugvuntts and the Vl'hurgs lived) filled the air over the conference table, which in the Vl'hurg tongue was the most dreadful insult imaginable. It left them no choice but to declare war on the G'Gugvuntts, which went on for a few thousand years and decimated their entire galaxy. After millennia of battle the surviving G'Gugvuntt and Vl'hurg realised what had actually happened, and joined forces to attack the Milky Way in retaliation. They crossed vast reaches of space in a journey lasting thousands of years before reaching their target where they attacked the first planet they encountered, Earth. Due to a terrible miscalculation of scale the entire battle fleet was swallowed by a small dog. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy states that this sort of thing happens all the time. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_races_and_species_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s _Guide_to_the_Galaxy I hope the latest feud we bear witness to doesn't last that long! ;-) /Sunday's Sermon Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
At 08:08 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 05:34 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. This is such a facile explanation ... We mustn't unplug it from the wall because that would be dangerous. It's facile, to be sure. But that doesn't mean it's false. And that's not actually what Rossi said. If you were operating an E-Cat the way it was operated in the demos, and unplugged it, the thing would cool off. The danger would arise if we heat it up to a certain point, at which the heat generated is enough to keep it that hot, so that it needs no input power. At this point, you have lost control of the reaction. It's dangerous! How many reactions, which produce heat, and which may produce runaway heat, can be quenched by ... *heating them up* ? The device is not quenched by heating it up. Stephen, please understand this, it's leading you to stick your foot in your mouth. Let me repeat this: Nobody is claiming that the reaction is quenched by heating it up. Heating it up would not quench it, the opposite. Heating it up increases the reaction rate, within the range of interest. That's the claim, as far as I can tell: He has to have a heater attached to it (which can, after all, only do what a heater does, which is heat it up) so that it can be heated up to prevent it from getting too hot, which would be dangerous. No, that's not the claim. Please understand the claim! To be fair, I've never seen this explained by Rossi, but it's pretty obvious. I would call that another big red flag. There are big red flags, all right. This isn't one of them, in fact. The primary red flag is the secrecy, and we all know that there are some possible non-fraud explanations for this. Rossi's touchiness is a red flag, but he's human, which can also be enough of an explanation. Guess what, folks! Unless some investigator really does come up with a smoking gun, we are stuck with waiting. I'm suspecting we will hear more NiH results from others before we know much more about Rossi's work. If Rossi is (generally) telling the truth (allowing for the slips that people make when they are trying to conceal part of the truth, and other anomalies of conversation which show up when you go over it with a fine-tooth comb), something will happen, we will all know, before the end of the year. The worry is that conditions entirely other than the non-existence of the effect he's exploiting could lead to failure with Defkalion. Just to make one up: it only happens one time out of a thousand, but these things unexpectedly blow up. We haven't figured out the exact conditions, we are working on it.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
On 11-06-19 02:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 08:08 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 05:34 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. This is such a facile explanation ... We mustn't unplug it from the wall because that would be dangerous. It's facile, to be sure. But that doesn't mean it's false. And that's not actually what Rossi said. If you were operating an E-Cat the way it was operated in the demos, and unplugged it, the thing would cool off. The danger would arise if we heat it up to a certain point, at which the heat generated is enough to keep it that hot, so that it needs no input power. Rossi has never stated that, as far as I know. Only those attempting to explain his assertion that running without input power is too dangerous have said that. Ditto the alleged feedback loop which keeps the device at the exact temperature needed to heat the effluent to 101C, not more, not less, which has never been mentioned by Rossi. As far as I know Rossi has never given any explanation for why the device becomes dangerous if run unplugged, nor given any explanation for why the steam temperature never rose above 101C. If you have seen anything from Rossi asserting what you said above, I would really appreciate it if you'd quote it here, or provide a link to it.
Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
At 11:17 AM 6/19/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: ...Or at least, this is what Rossi is implying in the comment below pasted from his blog. It looks like we will know more details about it after the presentation of the 1-MW plant in October. Rossi paints a grim picture where LENR researchers backstab each other in order to obtain research funds and exclusivity rights. Very sad if true. Let's hope it's just confabulation following his anger outburst. * * * Do understand that many of us know Krivit pretty well. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=8#comment-47160 June 19th, 2011 at 9:17 AM Dear Staffan: Your comment opens the space to an intriguing consideration. Many Scientists have taken the correct approach: wait for the 1 MW plant in operation, then make due considerations. This is what smart People did. So, by definition, anyone asking questions is not smart. That's quite an assumption for a journalist to face. He's not a scientist, per se, and investigating stuff is his bread and butter. About pseudo-Scientists and their reaction to my Effect: probably you have read of the âSnakeâ report after an interview he made in Bologna. The snake. Cool. Krivit made a preliminary report, that was modest and only disclosed some of the process between Krivit and Rossi and Levi, none of it attacked them, he merely reported that he was asking questions, and speculated that Levi might not be understanding him, which was actually a charitable comment, and only reprehensible if we assume that Levi is the God of Science whose pronouncements are Not To Be Questioned. I rather doubt that Levi would characterize himself that way, so I only assume that Levi became personally offended by what he perceived as Krivit's attitude. Levi's response cannot be justified on the basis of Krivit's report. Now, as probably most of you have understood, we have very good , (VERY GOOD), intelligence working with us; after the âsnakeâ (disguised as a journalist) who has this week penetrated our organization and made a report based on a fake steam diagram, we asked to our intellicence organization to probe what was behind, and we discovered that: 1- The fake diagram of steam has been given to the âsnakeâ from an Italian competitor that is afraid to lose the funds due to the fact that the taxpayers are tired to give him money while we have reached results without any funding First of all, Rossi's claim here is preposterous. Krivit is a real journalist, funded to investigate issues around energy, and, most notably, cold fusion and related stuff. He's been doing it for years. Krivit apparently showed Levi some diagrams or information about steam quality as a problem. This is well-known. Since we don't see the diagram, and I rather doubt that Levi has a copy, there is no way to judge fake about it, and I seriously doubt that there was anything fake there. Krivit's report of it was that it showed the problem if the steam quality is estimated volumetrically, rather than by mass. They are reacting as if Krivit asserted that the measurements were volumetric, when Krivit reported the claim that it was by mass, as asserted by Levi, then, only, questioning *how* the measurements were made. It's appearing that this is a forbidden question, the kind of thing that if anything will exercise the attack dogs, this would be it. Tell me, folks, how impressed are we by Rossi's claim of VERY GOOD intelligence. Is our assessment of this intelligence -- that tells us nothing of value, since, supppose it is correct that the information was provided by a competitor, the question would still be a valid one, on its own merits. This would be like a defense attorney refusing to answer a question from the prosecution on the grounds that the question came from a proposal from an enemy of the defendant. The question is valid regardless of the source, this is pure ad-hominem argument, attempting to discredit Krivit based on irrelevancies. Reporters often ask questions based on tips, and tips often come from people with an axe to grind. But I doubt the whole story, it sounds like someone made it up, based on indirect evidence. There has been enormous discussion of the issues around the Rossi reactor, and so someone sees something from the Italian competitor has been posted, assumes that Krivit read it and derived his question from it. Or maybe even Krivit responded, which would at least establish that he knew about it. So? The question is real, and lots of people who are very much not pseudoskeptics think it's a real question. 2- this Italian clown has been given the fake diagram fro an American Laboratory, competing with us, which gave it to him for the same reason This gets tangled. So Krivit didn't get the alleged fake diagram from the Italian competitor, but instead of an American laboratory. 3- the snake has been sent to us to try
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
At 11:39 AM 6/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: He is a very frank.He said emphatically he wants no more tests before the 1 MW demonstration. I think that policy is ill-advised. I do not understand it. But it is his decision, and I suppose he has his reasons. Well, there are two possible reasons that I can see. 1. It's a fake. Obvious possible reason. 2. It's real. He doesn't want competition to be seriously funded, so he doesn't want the reality to be clearly demonstrated. Having been, myself, contacted by a person working with a major think tank, that advises government and large corporations re energy policy and technology, I know that there is interest, and if the evidence available were not tainted by appearances that seem to be actively being created by Rossi, if we assume he is intelligent -- which I think is the case -- the money would start flowing, very, very rapidly. Rossi, in what he states, has it completely backwards. If the motive were to discredit him, it would not be originating with competitors, not within the field, but from competitors outside the field. Rossi has blown the lid off of the cold fusion funding situation, and may have realized that, and so is truly trying to increase skepticism. It might even work. He also said he is too busy to do a test with my instruments. That is understandable. It takes all day. It is more involved than the quick show-and-tell demonstration he did for Krivit. I have no problem being told: I cannot spare a whole day to help you. I do not know what Krivit expected to see or whether he discussed the agenda before he left. Frankly, if he wanted to see reports from Levi or Galantini, he should have asked for those reports before buying the airplane ticket. As I said, I always try to learn what it is I will do before I set off on a trip. Rossi told me he would only be willing to do the kind of quick demonstration he did for Krivit. I did not wish to go all the way to Italy to see that. I told Rossi no thank you, and there were no hard feelings. If people do not wish to share data, there is no point to being confrontational. In my case, there is no point to going. Krivit has a completely different motive. He can't be the intrepid investigative reporter that is the image he has constructed, with years of effort, and ignore this story. He had to go. Krivit often manages to create stories that are about him. Remember his visit to Fleischmann, where, he alleged, a representative of Dardik wouldn't allow him to talk to Fleischmann as scheduled? Krivit turned an ordinary setback, must happen to journalists all the time, into the whole story, replete with Krivit's speculations and thought processes, betraying his own bias. This situation is not quite the same, however. I don't think that Krivit anticipated the hostile response, I suspect he stumbled into it. I'm not convinced that he could have done it better. Maybe, but it would have taken extraordinary skill and tact. If Krivit wants to continue his career as investigative journalist, I'd suggest he learn the skills. The story has to become more important than yourself. (I no way am I suggesting that Krivit should not have asked about steam quality. It was the obvious question. However, in theory, it should have been possible to ask the question in such a way as to massage Levi's ego, instead of tromping on it. Help us out, Professor Levi, we are trying to understand this question. ... I don't understand this explanation, please guide me through this, I'm just an amateur, compared to your sophistication. I need to explain this to my readers, who won't have the advantage of your presence, so, while I am, of course, convinced, based on your obvious and deep personal integrity, I need to lay it out in detail.) Or something like that. I'm not claiming that this is easy. No profession is easy, is it?
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
At 08:37 PM 6/18/2011, you wrote: Why Levi is upset is more evident in this exchange between Steven Krivit and Luigi Versaggi P. https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/cold-fusion-andrea-rossi-method/i-made-a-question-to-steven-krivit/235485236468276 If I recall correctly someone wrote on the vortex list back in feburary or march that Galantini never wrote a report, so that fact is not news. Steven Kirvit managed to catch Levi uttering a 'white lie' to *him*. Is that fact news? Harry Here is Krivit's report, copied in its entirety for commentary and criticism: Steven B. Krivit says: June 18, 2011 at 04:55 Caro Luigi, Many of my readers were asking me for a report. My quick report is based on the facts that I have been able to obtain as of this point in time. There is nothing conclusive about my quick report and people would have been in gross error to assume any kind of conclusion based on that quick report alone. This was my impression also. I could not tell from the preliminary report what kind of stand Krivit was going to take on the steam issue. The vehement attacks from Levi and Rossi complicate the issue. As you know, I have identified a crucial factor which could, repeat, could have an immense bearing on the validity and viability of the E-Cat. I certainly hope for the best for the E-Cat but Levi and Rossis responses today seem to be more along the lines of attacking me personally rather than clearly explaining and providing support for this crucial factor. It may be a crucial factor, or it may be irrelevant. It is crucial in terms of understanding the demonstrations, which are, in the end, irrelevant, compared to what Rossi -- and apparently others -- are asserting. What we know is that, from the data we have, that is publically available in witnessed demonstrations, we don't know actual generated energy. We need that steam quality data, and it would need to be conclusive, or the demonstration simply wasn't. At least, it was not a simple demonstration, as simple as it might have appeared, if not for this issue. On Wednesday, Levi had assured me that the steam measurements were made by mass, not by volume. At that time, I asked Levi to help me understand how this measurement was done by mass so I could put the issue to rest and dismiss it as an invalid critique, as I told Levi. Right. The proper approach. Help me understand. But Levi could not explain the measurement process to me in any detail, though he did draw me a rough sketch of where Galantini placed the probe. Instead, Levi told me that Galantini was the expert in the subject. Great. So, then, we'd want Galantini's report, of course. What did the expert say? He told me that Galantini had prepared a report with the details. I asked Levi to send me the report so I had something to give to readers that would support Levis claim. With such confirmation, the news might have been very positive. On Wednesday, Levi agreed to send me the report. Which may have meant, I'll try to get one from Galantini. See, Levi may have a *verbal* report from Galantini. It might be quite informal, and Galantini may not have hedged it with all the qualifications that a true expert would put in, in a formal written report on which his future reputation might depend. Earlier on Wednesday morning however, Rossi, unbeknownst to Levi, told me in my interview with him, that Galantini never wrote a report. So we have some serious contradictions here on a very serious factor. Well, there you go again, Steve. Basic rule: assume that there is a harmonizing truth underneath apparently contradictory testimony. If nobody is actually lying, this is often the case. So what could be the truth here? First of all, did Levi tell you that Galantini submitted a written report? What if Galantini had written a report, perhaps a draft, and Levi saw it or knows that it exists. And Rossi does not. The procedure here would be to start with a rebuttable assumption that all testimony is true, a basic common-law principle. A harmonizing interpretation, then, becomes the basis for more detailed questions attempting to confirm what becomes a hypothesis. The testimony only becomes contradictory if we assume several things: that both Levi and Rossi are fully cognizant of all the details, that they understood the question, that they both answered completely, etc. You are correct that apparent contradiction forms the basis for further questions, but I suggest avoiding making the contradiction the story, unless you really get stuck there. The bottom line, in fact: you don't have a report from Galantini. That, you know, for certain. Levi also agreed on Wednesday to send me data or a report to support the sub-vapor experiment from Feb. 10-11. This data or report, as well, would have brought us all great news. Now, sadly, Levi says he will not send me anything I have asked for. Again, that a
[Vo]:Something more on the steam
I've asserted recently that it was obvious to me that the steam was wet, and I've said, several times, that it would take too long to explain why. I've got a few minutes, so I'll see if I can fit in a coherent explanation. The attached graph (with my annotations) is from the paper http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf It has several interesting points. First, as I've said in previous email, the total power dissipated in the device can be estimated from the slope of the curve and the temperature of the effluent. The power needed to heat the output water goes up linearly with the temperature of the output water, and the power needed to heat the device goes up linearly with the slope of the curve. There was a claim of ignition at about 60C, at which point the device started generating power. In fact, the graph says that can't be right. If the device generated no power before it hit 60 degrees, the temperature would not have gotten to 60 degrees so quickly, because (as stated in the paper) the heater temperature was only adequate to maintain it at 60 degrees with the flow rate used in the experiment. So, the heating curve, instead of looking like a straight line, would look like a capacitor charging curve, and it would have taken much, much longer to reach ignition. The steam was claimed to be dry in this experiment. In that case, the output power was something on the order of 10 kW once it started producing steam. But the output power before that point, which we can read from the graph, was about a factor of eight less than that. So, once it hit boiling, the output power must have increased eight fold, very rapidly -- certainly more rapidly than the power had been increasing up to that point. But then, since the effluent temperature did not rise above 101C, the power generation must have stopped its meteoric rise at exactly the core temperature needed to keep the effluent at 101C, no more, no less. If the device were running open loop, that would be absurd. There *MUST* be a feedback mechanism to keep the temperature almost exactly at boiling. Complex scenarios regarding the contents of the blue box have been posted to the list, explaining how the feedback must have been done. However, as far as I can tell, these are pure speculation, with no statements from Rossi to back them up. Furthermore, there's no evidence of any feedback wire leading from the effluent temperature sensor, and no statement from Rossi to indicate that such feedback might exist. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that feedback from a sensor in the core would be able to hold the effluent temperature exactly at boiling; feedback must have been derived from the actual effluent temperature. But there's a much simpler explanation: Internal feedback, in the form of entrained water droplets, would nail the output temperature of the steam at, or just above, boiling. There's no need to imagine complex feedback circuits, sensitive control electronics, nor any need to postulate a reason why the optimal temperature at which the circuitry held the temperature must be EXACTLY BOILING, rather than, say, 7.5 degrees above boiling. (BTW, if I recall correctly, someone looked up the boiling point that day at Rossi's location and ambient barometric pressure, and it was actually about 101C, not 100C -- so this really was nailed *at* *boiling*.) Furthermore, this avoids the need to believe in the inflationary phase during which power generation increases dramatically for a brief period just after the output temperature hits boiling. I realize I've waved my hands a bit here; it's been a while since I worked this out and I don't have all the data and equations in front of me. If anyone cares, I can go back and get some numbers out of the above cited paper and tighten up the argument a little. I could also plot the temperature rise we'd expect to see if generated power didn't start until 60C (it really does look like a capacitor charging curve). But I think what I've said here should make my reasoning pretty clear. Finally, there's a much more disturbing issue with the attached graph. The temperature rise in much of the graph is not just above what we'd expect to see if the power generation were fixed -- it's actually LINEAR. From initiation to about 45 degrees it's dead linear; from 60 to 80 degrees it's dead linear. Other segments are look nearly linear. Now, those linear rise segments could be the result of a coincidence: The generated power just happens to be rising exactly fast enough to keep the effluent temperature rising linearly. That might be a bit surprising, but it's certainly possible. But it could be the result of something else: If the effluent flow rate were zero at the site of the temperature probe, we would see a linear temperature rise. The reason is that the expected non-linearity results from the fact that the power needed
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
At 11:57 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Stephen, perhaps you are making the same mistake here, misunderstanding what's being said. It's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C, but it would take post-generation heating. That is, if you are generating steam by boiling water, the steam is evolved at the boiling point. There is a classic demonstration, used to be common in high school physics labs: you boil water in a paper cup, over a flame, as I recall. The water in the cup simply cannot go above the boiling point, and remain water. When it is vaporized it absorbs, from the state change, a huge amount of heat, thus, in practice, you can use boiling water to calibrate a thermometer. (And ice-water, at the other end of the Centigrade scale. Mixed phase in both situations.) So to reach higher than 100 C, the steam would have to be further heated, not through heating of the water, but of the steam directly. Further, isn't the idea here that there is water in the exhaust, that the steam is wet? Dry steam hotter than 100 C is definitely possible (with post-generating heating). But wet steam presents a problem. The hotter the steam, the more rapidly the water would evaporate, so the less water there could be, it would be transient. It's hard to imagine an arrangement in this situation where the water remains cool while the steam is heated above boiling. If the water is as fine droplets, forget it. It would vanish almost immediately if the temperature is higher than the boiling point, cooling the steam, until the water were entirely vaporized and the steam dry, or the steam is cooled to the boiling point. I can understand why boiling water is used as a measure of energy, it's pretty simple, *if measures are taken to measure the water content. If the exit path for the steam is directly from the device into the air, with no water leaving (as with an ordinary teakettle!), the steam will be dry, so measuring the mass of water evaporated is a simple and clean demonstration, allowing easy calculation of energy evolved (aside from other losses, as through radiation or convection off of the device). My guess, though, the Rossi devices would spit water. That could be avoided by redesign, and this may be what they have done. It would spit water if the manner of heating, inside, allowed pockets of steam to be trapped, with water blocking the exist path, so the water would be blown out. Basically, gravity could be used to keep the water in the bottom of the cell, with the steam rising out the top. But the E-Cat appears to have a horizontal design. So that it would spit isn't terribly surprising. This might be avoided by simply tipping the thing a little, so that the exit tube is the highest point inside, and bubbles of steam rising from anywhere inside would rise directly to that point, with no place for them to be trapped. Once the thing doesn't spit, there is no need for the tube to the sink, nor any need to collect water, since there would be no water coming out at any point. Does your tea kettle spit water at you? I didn't think so! The device, as it was powered up, would start to boil water, filling the output tube with steam. The steam will rapidly transfer heat to the output tube until it is also at the boiling point, and that condensed water would drain back into the heating chamber. When the exit tube reaches the boiling temperature, at that time, true dry steam would start coming out, which is invisible. Put a whistle on the thing, with a narrow output opening! You could even calibrate the whistle to provide an operating measure of energy generation rate. (Thanks to a pseudoskeptic who was fond of steampunk for that suggestion, Barry Kort.) In any case, if the opening is narrow, you'd see that the steam is invisible as it comes out, guaranteeing that it is dry, it would only become visible a short distance from the opening, as it cools from contact with the air and forms a steam cloud. Please, folks, don't stick your hand in that invisible steam. It may only be at 100 degrees, but it's dangerous, it's carrying a lot of heat, which it will cheerfully transfer to your skin, in a flash. Maybe if you are *fast*, you wouldn't get burned, but I wouldn't advise trying it. I have no problem with touching something at 100 degrees, or quite a bit hotter, if it isn't live steam! It's easy to be fast enough. If I think it's really hot, I might lick my finger first! The steam formation will protect my skin, as long as I don't leave the finger, and the hiss tells me it's above boiling. Hey, hiss. Snake! (I've also watched fire-walkers. Yes, folks, people actually do walk on hot coals. It probably has to do with a protective layer of water vapor that forms under the
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
At 12:03 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Ooops, overlooked something in your message. On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: 3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that the first test was right No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented. Lost performative here. That's why Stephen and Jed are talking past each other. Jed means confirmed for Levi and Rossi, Stephen means didn't confirm for the rest of us. Basically, confirmed is an interpretation, not a fact. Ever. Since it is meaning supplied, who supplies the meaning is crucial. And, of course, if anyone considers Levi's testimony adequate, it confirmed it for them Personally, I consider Levi's testimony adequate to establish a rebuttable presumption that the effect is real. But there are lots of ways for this to go south. I've mentioned some before. Based on Levi's testimony, I'd invest a modest amount in this, should there be an opportunity, I'd place a bet on it, so to speak, but that would depend on the offered odds! I would not advise investing a few hundred million dollars on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of Rossi and Levi. Clear about where I stand? It was viewed, in private, by exactly the people whose earlier results I'm suspicious of, and they told us everything is fine, don't worry. You are repeating the obvious. Stephen. That's like a poker game where nobody has to show their cards, they just state what they have and everyone believes them. The honor system isn't used in poker, and it doesn't get you very far in science, either. But this isn't science. You want to do science, Stephen, you'll have to actually get your hands dirty, most likely. Very little of it is done by yakking on a mailing list. Science doesn't give a hoot about whether or not Rossi is honorable or not. Yes, if we have reason to doubt the testimony of someone, we may deprecate it, but the error would be in assuming that this is a proof of falsehood. It is not. Not ever. Otherwise we enter the territory of paradox. This isn't a game where nobody has to show their cards. First of all, Stephen, who's playing the game? How is it defined who wins? What's the game being played? From my perspective, different players may be playing different games. Rossi is not playing the game of science, that's obvious. He seems to be playing a number of games, the most obvious of which he wins if he makes a pile of money. And what you think of him, and what I think of him, has *nothing* to do with his game. He's pretty explicit about this, so, in that sense, he's quite honest. If he's a fraud, faking all this, it's another story. I rather doubt it, but I do know history, and it's happened before. Inventor believes he is *close* to a commercial application, but needs more money to finish up the work. So, to raise the money, he fudges a demonstration, he imagines it will be harmless. If he was right, and if he's able to remedy the defects, he would be, perhaps, vindicated. But it has happened that the defect wasn't remediable, and the fraud was -- sometimes -- exposed. Sometimes the inventor died and everyone was left wondering what the hell happened. And there are, then, endless possibilities for conspiracy theories, etc I don't think that will be the end here, because NiH is being intensively investigated now, that's been one of Rossi's genuine accomplishments. Still, if his secret catalyst turns out to be essential and is not independently discovered, there could be a problem. I'm hoping that there has been enough disclosure of his process that, should something happen to him, it will come out, but I have no idea if this is the case.
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
On 11-06-19 04:38 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 11:57 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Stephen, perhaps you are making the same mistake here, misunderstanding what's being said. ? What point did I miss ? It's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C, but it would take post-generation heating. Obviously. It boils at 100C, and to make it hotter than that, you need to heat it some more. I'm sorry, but I seem to have totally missed the point of what follows. It appears to be a rehash of all that's been said already regarding steam. Certainly there's nothing to disagree with in it (save one item I flagged), but I don't understand what point you were trying to make. BTW regarding fire walkers, part of the trick may be something Lawrence was made to say in the film Lawrence of Arabia: The 'trick' is not caring that it hurts. That is, if you are generating steam by boiling water, the steam is evolved at the boiling point. There is a classic demonstration, used to be common in high school physics labs: you boil water in a paper cup, over a flame, as I recall. The water in the cup simply cannot go above the boiling point, and remain water. When it is vaporized it absorbs, from the state change, a huge amount of heat, thus, in practice, you can use boiling water to calibrate a thermometer. (And ice-water, at the other end of the Centigrade scale. Mixed phase in both situations.) So to reach higher than 100 C, the steam would have to be further heated, not through heating of the water, but of the steam directly. Further, isn't the idea here that there is water in the exhaust, that the steam is wet? Dry steam hotter than 100 C is definitely possible (with post-generating heating). But wet steam presents a problem. The hotter the steam, the more rapidly the water would evaporate, so the less water there could be, it would be transient. It's hard to imagine an arrangement in this situation where the water remains cool while the steam is heated above boiling. If the water is as fine droplets, forget it. It would vanish almost immediately if the temperature is higher than the boiling point, cooling the steam, until the water were entirely vaporized and the steam dry, or the steam is cooled to the boiling point. I can understand why boiling water is used as a measure of energy, it's pretty simple, *if measures are taken to measure the water content. If the exit path for the steam is directly from the device into the air, with no water leaving (as with an ordinary teakettle!), the steam will be dry, so measuring the mass of water evaporated is a simple and clean demonstration, allowing easy calculation of energy evolved (aside from other losses, as through radiation or convection off of the device). My guess, though, the Rossi devices would spit water. That could be avoided by redesign, and this may be what they have done. It would spit water if the manner of heating, inside, allowed pockets of steam to be trapped, with water blocking the exist path, so the water would be blown out. Basically, gravity could be used to keep the water in the bottom of the cell, with the steam rising out the top. But the E-Cat appears to have a horizontal design. So that it would spit isn't terribly surprising. This might be avoided by simply tipping the thing a little, so that the exit tube is the highest point inside, and bubbles of steam rising from anywhere inside would rise directly to that point, with no place for them to be trapped. Once the thing doesn't spit, there is no need for the tube to the sink, nor any need to collect water, since there would be no water coming out at any point. There is a need, actually. It's generating so much heat (10 kW + ) that it would rapidly turn the lab into a sauna if it weren't vented someplace. Stuffing the hose down the sink dumps the heat, not just the water. The window would have been OK but the sink was apparently more convenient (and besides, if it were spitting out the window, passersby might object). Does your tea kettle spit water at you? I didn't think so! The device, as it was powered up, would start to boil water, filling the output tube with steam. The steam will rapidly transfer heat to the output tube until it is also at the boiling point, and that condensed water would drain back into the heating chamber. When the exit tube reaches the boiling temperature, at that time, true dry steam would start coming out, which is invisible. Put a whistle on the thing, with a narrow output opening! You could even calibrate the whistle to provide an operating measure of energy generation rate. (Thanks to a pseudoskeptic who was fond of steampunk for that suggestion, Barry Kort.) In any case, if the opening is
Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
At 12:05 PM 6/19/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: 1- The fake diagram of steam has been given to the snake Anyone have any idea what he means here? I do not recall a diagram. Is he speaking of a water phase graph? You need a program, with notes. Supposedly Krivit showed Levi some diagram. This is totally irrelevant, it's Levi and Rossi blowing smoke. Suppose that Krivit showed Levi some diagram, does it matter? My recollection is that Krivit got the diagram from a textbook, but this gets so bloody contorted The point is that steam quality is very important. That is all that any diagram could establish. And it's simply true, with or without a diagram. Krivit may simply have been trying to bolser his argument, and, my guess, Krivit shouldn't have done that. With my twenty-twenty hindsight. (As a journalist, Krivit should rigorously avoid giving his own arguments. He might present an argument from someone else, i.e., So-and-so has claimed that blah-blah, what can you tell me about this? And then make sure that the answer is clear to him. (If it's not clear to him, then, he'd explain that he doesn't understand how this response answers the question, and if he's puzzled, so too might his readers be. A journalist should rigorously avoid, in the investigative process, taking a position. My own opinion is that this neutrality should extend to reported conclusions as well, though a reporter, in some environments, may state a personal conclusion, the problem comes when this starts to affect how the issues are reported. Strictly speaking, a neutral reporter does not report personal conclusions at all, any conclusions are attributed.) A neutral report, with proper attribution, will hardly ever be wrong in the judgment of history. Errors arise in conclusions. Personally, I think that Krivit's done a decent job, here, though his last report worries me a little, he's suggesting that conclusions may be drawn from his personal experience, when, in fact, all that the personal experience shows is that Rossi did not want to cooperate with him. As we have seen from Jed Rothwell, it was the same with Jed, but Jed had tried to establish the ground rules first, Krivit seems to have just showed up more or less. Krivit, as someone with established views on LENR, would not seem like an ordinary reporter. It seems astonishing to me that Rossi would not already be aware of who Steve Krivit is, but it's possible he didn't. Then Rossi gets this report from his VERY GOOD investigator, who may have simply googled Krivit and came up with the obvious, but who jumped to conclusions without anything like VERY GOOD investigation. If we assume that Rossi is honest and straightforward, we are left with some serious contradictions, so, my operating conclusion, confirmed by this -- and not really contradicted by Rossi himself -- is that Rossi is not honest and straightforward, which really ought to be a no-brainer. Rossi is concealing stuff, but he has a habit of opening his mouth, which is going to lead to some contradictions! Apparently, there is an English phrase he never learned: No comment. I think that in business school, they have people write this a thousand times on the chalkboard, so that it will be ready at hand and reflexively used until the person has strong reason to actually make a comment.
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
At 12:09 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Oh come now. Don't make false accusations. I admitted fully and frankly that I made a mistake there. It's not a false accusation. Getting that admission was like pulling teeth, and even then it was a qualified admission. Don't make me search the archives to prove it. Okay, Stephen, he won't, perhaps. But I will. But, first, what are you trying to prove? Be specific, very specific. Let me give you a hint: if you are trying to prove your *story, i.e., like pulling teeth, you are going to have, shall we say, some difficulty. That's not what happened, unless you have some teeth that were pulled. Even then, connecting the teeth you, or someone, lost, with what Rothwell wrote, could be difficult, eh? I had enough trouble is a story about yourself, not about Rothwell. These are simple distinctions, and until you get them, you are going to get in lots of arguments like this, over completely useless stuff, that gain you nothing. Are you aware, Stephen, that there is no clear contradiction between your statement and that of Jed? Yet it seems you think there is. I could parse this, but why don't you try to do it yourself, first, before you undertake that search of the archives. What's the actual issue here? What I've seen from your comments is that you presented the issue in an incomplete manner. It is, indeed, possible to have steam at higher than 100 C, but under what conditions? Were those conditions relevant to those of the demonstration in question? So if Jed answered within the confines of the experimental conditions, you could then get him with an error. Think about it. Also think about how you find yourself responding to my comment. Do you find yourself imagining that I have a motive, perhaps to humiliate and embarrass you? I can tell you that my motive is the opposite, actually, but what is your instinct here? Authenticity matters.
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
On 11-06-19 05:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 12:09 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Oh come now. Don't make false accusations. I admitted fully and frankly that I made a mistake there. It's not a false accusation. Getting that admission was like pulling teeth, and even then it was a qualified admission. Don't make me search the archives to prove it. Okay, Stephen, he won't, perhaps. But I will. No you won't. If you want to know what was said in the argument over steam temperature, and what Jed's final word was on it, do the search yourself. Jed apparently is content to let it lie, and I am, too. As for you, that's up to you. (And if you do dig around to find the argument, *please* *don't* regurgitate it here! Once was enough!) But, first, what are you trying to prove? Nothing, in any argument with you. I'm not arguing with you. Seriously, I have no idea what your point is, nor why it's taking you so many words to get to it. ... Also think about how you find yourself responding to my comment. Do you find yourself imagining that I have a motive, You must have a motive but I can't imagine what it is. (It never, in a million years, would have occurred to me that you were trying to embarrass anyone, BTW. You don't do that sort of thing, not as far as I know. It seems clear you're lecturing me about something, but I really don't know what.)
Re: [Vo]:Steven Chu
At 12:44 PM 6/19/2011, Bastiaan Bergman wrote: http://the-explorer.com/steven-chu-looks-at-lattice-assisted-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion/2011/3429583.html/ It *suggests* that Steven Chu was at the MIT meeting. But it clearly *states* that he is looking at Cold Fusion. Anyone has a link supporting the last claim? Thanks! Bastiaan. Well, Bastian, you were there, right? Chu was not, right? The report does state that Chu is looking at cold fusion, but it does not inform us how the reporter knows this. As such, it's poorly written. If the reporter knows this, but cannot give the source, then a reporter would normally so state. According to confidential sources, Steven Chu is looking at cold fusion. Or whatever she could say. She was at the Colloquium, I believe that's the woman who was introduced as a reporter. She did not disclose anything to the group about Chu, but she may have done so privately. Really, you'd have to ask her! (Unless someone else has seen something from Chu. It would not be surprising if he's looking at LENR, after all, didn't the DoE twice recommend more research in this field, but what this means isn't clear.)
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
- Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 12:03:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset Ooops, overlooked something in your message. On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: 3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that the first test was right No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented. It was viewed, in private, by exactly the people whose earlier results I'm suspicious of, and they told us everything is fine, don't worry. That's like a poker game where nobody has to show their cards, they just state what they have and everyone believes them. The honor system isn't used in poker, and it doesn't get you very far in science, either. The recent exchange between Rossi/Levi and Kirvirt has got me thinking a lot about the role of honour in science. Even skeptics and reporters are guided by sense of honour. What would it be like for a reputably knowledgeable fellow such as yourself to discover you had been duped by Rossi? Steven Krivit described himself as not being a BJ reporter. Clearly, he exhibits a sense of honour too. If it turns out Rossi's device works as he claims, I doubt Rossi could have made it commercially viable without a sense of honour to weather the criticism. So I would say a sense of honour can play a constructive role in advancing science and exposing mistakes or frauds. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam
At 01:57 PM 6/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Generally, what the record showed wasn't what some of the participants thought. They were reacting to, not what had actually been said, but how they had, themselves, interpreted it In Landmark terms, they had collapsed what had happened with the story about what happened. Then new stories are often created based on the original stories, etc. That is a sharp analysis. Thanks. I've paid a lot for it, both in money and time. On the other hand, Landmark is cheap compared to the alternatives. He [Rossi] could apologize. What would he lose if he did? Nothing that I can see! It would be out of character. Our character is a story we tell ourselves about ourselves, that we act out for the world to see (as well as ourselves). It is one of the biggest traps that keep us locked into our past. And if we believe that others are trapped by their character, we are ourselves caught in a version of this trap, a belief that the future is determined by the past. While there may or may not be truth to this idea, the key to understanding this is that, operating and maintaining the trap, is the collapse of stories about the past with what actually happened. Stories are inevitable. Believing them, turning them into fact, is not. Rossi's character is, in *our trap* -- as distinct from his -- something we created as a story from our experience with him. The more we believe that story, the less capable we become of seeing anything that would contradict it, and, as well, the more helpless we become to transform it. Once the pseudoskeptics created the story that cold fusion was a delusion caused by wishful thinking, grandiosity, etc., then every new piece of evidence was interpreted within that story, creating more and more stories, all self-reinforcing and self-confirming. And, of course, since they were dealing with believers, who wouldn't believe conclusive refutation anyway, why even bother doing the experimental work to demonstrate artifact? And within the CF community, we created a story about pseudoskeptics, a self-reinforcing interpretation that made our task impossible, for how can we convince people who are rigidly caught in their own illusion? I'll declare that there is a path out of these traps, and let that be enough for the moment. One fascinating presentation at the MIT Colloquium was from Dr. Xing Zhong Li, who showed a way of calculating fusion cross section that was intended to be more accurate than normally used models. If I understood him correctly, he's sliding this in because it's more accurate than the other models, but it makes some rather different predictions at very low energies In other words, he's incorporating the knowledge of the field, and nailing it down to make it more accurate. And then the surprise. I'm looking forward to seeing his paper, which, I'm given to understand, will be published. Li is a hot fusion physicist. It is not about right and wrong, that's all part of the problem. I'll relate this to the illusion that there were positive and negative experimental findings on cold fusion. When we know the underlying science, all experiments confirm it, unless artifact is clearly identified, and setting aside the fact that there may always remain some mysteries. This much we can see, now, those early replication failures were not replications and so they did not fail. Replications succeeded. The alleged failures are part of the evidence establishing the parameter space. For example, loading about about 90% was required. As soon as people were looking for confirmation, taking experimental reports as positive and negative, they were caught in the trap. Yeah, we all wanted to know. The trap is very human and very normal. Recognizing it doesn't stop us from being vulnerable to it, but it does allow moving on, and becoming available to new ideas and information and new possibilities. Look at this little piece of process with Krivit and Rossi. Krivit finds contradiction. I made the assumption that everyone was telling the truth, and came up with an explanation. Rossi just provided exactly that explanation. Now, that doesn't mean that it was true, only that a harmonizing intepretation was possible that allowed both pieces of apparently contradictory testimony to be true. With cold fusion, what are the harmonizing intepretations that make the vast bulk of the experimental evidence (testimony of researchers, as distinct from their intepretations, the stories that they tell about what their work supposedly means) into a consistent story about reality? No story is reality, that we should always keep in mind. Good stories are good at predicting results, usually. That's about it.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam
At 02:11 PM 6/19/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: He [Rossi] could apologize. What would he lose if he did? Nothing that I can see! It would be out of character. Yeah, just like Steven Kirvit could apologize for insinuating incompetency. lol. Yup. He could. The sky would not fall, only my jaw. Nothing wrong with my jaw falling occasionally. It would be good for it. Really, I think Krivit might do it here. Why not?
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:16:03 -0400: Hi, [snip] At 10:57 PM 6/18/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:32:54 -0400: Hi, [snip] It's being operated, apparently, at a balance point. Other designs ...or as Dr. Schwartz would say, an OOP. Well, no, even though I did refer to that term in one place. This isn't what Mitchell calls an OOP. Mitchell's OOP is a point of maximum energy generation, in PdD experiments with reference to input current, whereas in this case, the balance point is below the OOP, which might be anywhere up to the melting point of the fuel. You are correct about the two being different. In fact if Rossi's device can go explosive then there is no OOP. Since according to Dr. Schwartz' definition, the energy output should drop above the OOP, whereas in a device that explodes, it doesn't. Above the balance point it just keeps on increasing until there is no fuel left, or until there is no device left, which ever comes first. (In this instance I count melting the fuel and destroying the active sites as no device). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: FW: Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
In reply to francis 's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:11:41 -0400: Hi, [snip] Why not control the pump speed electronically (as well)? Stephen, I think you might be missing the point, in free running the OOP is AT the critical temperature and the heat sinking must be exactly balanced between quenching and runaway while normal operation is kept slightly below the critical temperature such that a PWM can push the material into critical behavior for a certain duty factor knowing the cooling loop is already operating at a rate which will pull the device back under critical simply by reducing the PRF or duty factor of the heater. Fran Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:02:22 -0400: Hi, [snip] If the effluent isn't flowing, however, the temperature rise is limited only by the need to heat the thermal mass of the device, which is fixed. The linearity argument is very far from conclusive, of course, but it's one more thing that bothers me. If one were trying to reach the operating temperature of the device, wouldn't it make sense to have no water flowing until it was reached (or at least close)? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:02:22 -0400: Hi, [snip] Complex explanations have been proposed, ranging from insensitive equipment to bizarre multibody fusion theories. Yet, a very simple explanation covers the result very well: Rossi lies. My own personal impression (for what it's worth) is that Rossi has something important and knows it, but doesn't understand it completely, and consequently can't control it perfectly, which makes him a little insecure, so he easily feels threatened, and says whatever he thinks is necessary on the spur of the moment to defend his position. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
At 02:46 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 02:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 08:08 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 05:34 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. This is such a facile explanation ... We mustn't unplug it from the wall because that would be dangerous. It's facile, to be sure. But that doesn't mean it's false. And that's not actually what Rossi said. If you were operating an E-Cat the way it was operated in the demos, and unplugged it, the thing would cool off. The danger would arise if we heat it up to a certain point, at which the heat generated is enough to keep it that hot, so that it needs no input power. Rossi has never stated that, as far as I know. Good, you got that down. But you inferred this from what other wrote: Only those attempting to explain his assertion that running without input power is too dangerous have said that. I can't be responsible for what many commentators might have said, people have said all kinds of things about the device. The problem is one of intepretation here, though. What does running without input power mean? Under what conditions would it be safe and under what conditions would it be dangerous? It's easy to answer that question, and it's a harmonizing intepretation. Running without input power requires raising the reaction cell temperature to the point where no heat input is needed, where the cell maintains its own temperature from generated heat. This is quite certainly not the operating temperature in the demonstrations, it must be a higher temperature. We can know this because, in fact, input power was maintained at all points, so the temperature must have been below a self-sustaining point (or the temperature would have risen higher and we'd have been in runaway.) Yes, if we don't believe that the reaction is capable of being self-sustaining, this wouldn't make sense, which is why some might reject this out-of-hand, losing context, which is understanding how heat could control the reaction *if it's real*. It only makes sense if the operating temperature is below the self-sustaining temperature. If that heat is removed, we are, by definition, not at the self-sustaining temperature, and we have been dependent on additional heat to reach the current operating temperature, so it's easy to predict that, then, the temperature would fall, thus lowing even further the generated heat, until the whole thing cools to ambient. Running without power would require running at the self-sustaining temperature, which, then, creates the possibility of runaway, if we exceed that temperature by even a very small margin. Hopefully, we'd have time to see it happening and flood the thing with nitrogen, which is apparently what they have done. It's possible that there is some chaotic effect on the temperature, so a temperature that might work at one time might be too high, as some rearrangement takes place in the nickel, say. And if the temperature is too low, then it will start to cool, and again, the cooling runs away until it's not generating any power at all. Controlling this through controlling cooling is an alternative, but that requires moving parts, perhaps. Cooling through boiling water can possibly work, since the heat carried away will increase with temperature. It could be pretty complicated, and Rossi may be sticking with control through heat, because no moving parts are involved and it's fail-safe. I.e., power failure, the additional heating stops, so the reaction chamber cools off and it shuts down. If the normal cooling is through boiling water, this is quite safe, because to fail, you'd have to run dry, and that can be easily avoided (with shutoff of the heating power if water is running out.) It's pretty straightforward. Ditto the alleged feedback loop which keeps the device at the exact temperature needed to heat the effluent to 101C, not more, not less, which has never been mentioned by Rossi. Oh, I'm not particularly interested in the exact steam temperature. I'm suspicious about what that means. As far as I know Rossi has never given any explanation for why the device becomes dangerous if run unplugged, nor given any explanation for why the steam temperature never rose above 101C. But it's obvious, Stephen. Whether he has explained it or not. First of all, you need to distinguish betweeen running unplugged, and the device being unplugged while running. The latter is not dangerous at all, the way they are running it. (There would be a danger if some circuit failure turned on the heater and left it on. Let's hope he's got some good design there! A really good design would still limit the temperature below the runaway point -- the
RE: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
From Robin, My own personal impression (for what it's worth) is that Rossi has something important and knows it, but doesn't understand it completely, and consequently can't control it perfectly, which makes him a little insecure, so he easily feels threatened, and says whatever he thinks is necessary on the spur of the moment to defend his position. This is pretty close to the impression that I have come to as well. I have no problem accepting the possibility that Rossi has stumbled across something unique, and that there is likely to be genuine COP occurring here. However, at present it would seem that very few understand just how unique the process is. So, in the meantime, as they say, I'm waiting for the other show to drop. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
ahh... so it is nothing more than misunderstanding about the meaning of the word report. Harry - Original Message From: Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 1:32:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset On 2011-06-19 02:37, Harry Veeder wrote: If I recall correctly someone wrote on the vortex list back in feburary or march that Galantini never wrote a report, so that fact is not news. Steven Kirvit managed to catch Levi uttering a 'white lie' to *him*. Is that fact news? Try read the following comment by Rossi. It might explain what happened. Somehow I missed it. * * * Andrea Rossi June 18th, 2011 at 4:02 AM “Rossi Responds to Scrutiny of his Claims”: The content of water in steam is always measured in mass, not in volume, because psychrometers work is based on the heat necessary to the evaporation ow residual water, and the heat is given in Joule/g, wherein g means grams. Krivit is not convinced only because has not the elementary knowledge of the physics involved. He had all the necessary explications from us, just did not (or wanted not) to understand. By the way: in a statement he released further, he said that while Prof. Levi told him there was a report about this issue, I said in the interview that there was not a report about this issue. This is a translation problem: with the term “report” I mean an extensive paper, while Prof. Levi referred to the simple communication that we received from the specialist who made the measurement, in which there were just the results. This is a misunderstanding, not a contradiction. Warm Regards, A.R. * * * By the way, there are two new blogposts on New Energy Times. I found the message by Rossi above in the first link below: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/19/rossis-responses-to-preliminary-report/ /
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
On 11-06-19 06:44 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:02:22 -0400: Hi, [snip] If the effluent isn't flowing, however, the temperature rise is limited only by the need to heat the thermal mass of the device, which is fixed. The linearity argument is very far from conclusive, of course, but it's one more thing that bothers me. If one were trying to reach the operating temperature of the device, wouldn't it make sense to have no water flowing until it was reached (or at least close)? Yes, it would. AFAIK that wasn't done, however -- certainly no mention has ever been made of turning on the pump *after* the thing had achieved criticality.
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
- Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 8:01:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset On 11-06-18 10:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-18 09:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert. Jed is right about sparging the steam. Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway? There are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow. OK, you asked for it, somebody should say it. We've all been dancing around it, but it hasn't quite been said in so many words, so here it is: It's a lot easier to produce phony results which look good when you do it with a phase change of this sort. Flow calorimetry with single-phase water is a lot harder to fool. There, I said it, now you can claim I'm being pathologically skeptical and psychotically paranoid -- and I'll apologize profusely and eat every word of it, when ... and if ... this thing is finally either REPLICATED or COMMERCIALIZED. But right now, IMO it smells, and it's smelled all along, and smelly stuff hardly ever turns out to be pure gold. If you were Rossi the businessman, and you knew your device has turned water into steam for short periods of time without any input power, wouldn't you treat the steam quality issue as a minor concern? You're apparently speculating as to what Rossi might have been thinking in an effort to explain the obvious fact that he structured the experiment in a way that would make it easy to obfuscate the output power, and then lied about the steam quality to do just that. Perhaps your defense of him is right, and perhaps it's wrong -- I can't read his mind, and have no interest in trying. No, I mean he doesn't care if other people have concluded he is engaged in fraud or is incompetent based on his dubious steam quality measurements. He knows he has a device that is capable of generating heat without any input power, so he is very confident he has something that is physically and technologically significant. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
- Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 9:09:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam On 11-06-19 06:44 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:02:22 -0400: Hi, [snip] If the effluent isn't flowing, however, the temperature rise is limited only by the need to heat the thermal mass of the device, which is fixed. The linearity argument is very far from conclusive, of course, but it's one more thing that bothers me. If one were trying to reach the operating temperature of the device, wouldn't it make sense to have no water flowing until it was reached (or at least close)? Yes, it would. AFAIK that wasn't done, however -- certainly no mention has ever been made of turning on the pump *after* the thing had achieved criticality. Perhaps he has learned how to better regulate the reaction without any water flow, but in the earlier demonstrations Rossi did not want to expose the invited observers to this extra risk. He also didn't want to risk disgracing himself by allowing his promising device to blow up while an audience of reporters and other opinion makers watched from a safe room. Harry
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Rossi could use tungsten as a replacement for stainless steel (SS) as the shell of his reaction vessel. The nano-powder has a higher melting temperature then SS. Tungsten is also opaque to x-rays/gamma-rays can replace lead shielding; and very importantly, it is also impermeable to hydrogen As a compromise, carbon/carbon composites could also be used and is far cheaper but carbon is transparent to EMF radiation so lead radiation shielding must stay in play. The hydrogen explosion risk is from failure of the reaction vessel at high temperature. Currently, the reaction vessel will fail before the powder melts. Reaction vessel rupture will not happen if tungsten, carbon; TZM (Mo (~99%), Ti (~0.5%), Zr (~0.08%)), tungsten carbide, or many other possible refractory based materials that could be used for the body of the reaction vessel. The nickel powder will melt long before the reaction vessel loses significant strength. The expense of these refractory capable materials would be offset by the increase in energy gain factor up to 200 that they would support as opposed to 6 as currently exists. On high temperature unit could replace 34 low temperature reactors. A 1 Mwt reactor would contain 10 high temperature units instead of 1000 and run at higher efficiency. On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 02:46 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 02:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 08:08 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 05:34 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. This is such a facile explanation ... We mustn't unplug it from the wall because that would be dangerous. It's facile, to be sure. But that doesn't mean it's false. And that's not actually what Rossi said. If you were operating an E-Cat the way it was operated in the demos, and unplugged it, the thing would cool off. The danger would arise if we heat it up to a certain point, at which the heat generated is enough to keep it that hot, so that it needs no input power. Rossi has never stated that, as far as I know. Good, you got that down. But you inferred this from what other wrote: Only those attempting to explain his assertion that running without input power is too dangerous have said that. I can't be responsible for what many commentators might have said, people have said all kinds of things about the device. The problem is one of intepretation here, though. What does running without input power mean? Under what conditions would it be safe and under what conditions would it be dangerous? It's easy to answer that question, and it's a harmonizing intepretation. Running without input power requires raising the reaction cell temperature to the point where no heat input is needed, where the cell maintains its own temperature from generated heat. This is quite certainly not the operating temperature in the demonstrations, it must be a higher temperature. We can know this because, in fact, input power was maintained at all points, so the temperature must have been below a self-sustaining point (or the temperature would have risen higher and we'd have been in runaway.) Yes, if we don't believe that the reaction is capable of being self-sustaining, this wouldn't make sense, which is why some might reject this out-of-hand, losing context, which is understanding how heat could control the reaction *if it's real*. It only makes sense if the operating temperature is below the self-sustaining temperature. If that heat is removed, we are, by definition, not at the self-sustaining temperature, and we have been dependent on additional heat to reach the current operating temperature, so it's easy to predict that, then, the temperature would fall, thus lowing even further the generated heat, until the whole thing cools to ambient. Running without power would require running at the self-sustaining temperature, which, then, creates the possibility of runaway, if we exceed that temperature by even a very small margin. Hopefully, we'd have time to see it happening and flood the thing with nitrogen, which is apparently what they have done. It's possible that there is some chaotic effect on the temperature, so a temperature that might work at one time might be too high, as some rearrangement takes place in the nickel, say. And if the temperature is too low, then it will start to cool, and again, the cooling runs away until it's not generating any power at all. Controlling this through controlling cooling is an alternative, but that requires moving parts, perhaps. Cooling through boiling water can possibly work, since the heat carried away will increase with temperature. It could be pretty complicated, and Rossi may be sticking with
