Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
Horace wrote: «Sparging steam into a bucket, though far better that other steam methods applied to date on Rossi's devices, and publicly disclosed, has numerous serious drawbacks, which have already been discussed.» And where they are discussed and by whom? There might be problems, and first is that steam can carry 10-20 times more heat than water coolant. But these are just problems that can be solved with creativity. I am sure that these are not relevant obstacles by any means. With your analysis, how do you explain up to 2.0°C temperature anomaly above local boiling point? That was observed in December test. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
The computations in the following pdfs are provided in order to hopefully permit more meaningful discussion or understanding of the percolator effect as it relates to Rossi type devices and simulators: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/KrivitFilm.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Cantwell2.pdf It appears there has been a failure to understand the significance of my recent post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg50661.html One problem is a failure to grasp that pure water can be expected to accumulate within such devices until a percolation effect causes the water to be ejected or overflow from the device. There is a failure to either understand or accept that the percolator effect can be expected to happen in at least two locations: (1) anywhere the hose rises, including at the exit, or (2) in the vertical flow column (chimney) in the device itself. This leads to problems with interpreting experimental results, such as the assumption that the percolator effect happens only due to water that has condensed in the hose due to heat loss through the hose wall. The time constant for percolation events in the hose clearly can be expected to differ from such events occurring at the vertical flow column, the chimney. This false assumption has even been applied to Rick Cantwell's excellent experiment, discussed in the above referenced vortex posting. This strikes me as very odd because all the parameters are known - there is no possibility of excess heat from nuclear effects. As my computations show, when Cantwell's device is at equilibrium in mode 2 or mode 3, significant water, the majority of the input water, is necessarily pumped out of the device without boiling at all. The KrivitFilm pdf provides enough information to show that the Rossi demo device in the Krivit 14 June 2011 film necessarily pumps out liquid water unless the thermal power of the device is above 5012 W, and the steam flow is 3.2 liters per second from the device. The hose can not condense a significant portion of the steam coming out of the device at this power, as an upper bound for condensation power for 3 liters of hose should be about 460 watts. Tis assumes a delta T of 10°C, as Rick Cantwell observed. Even if the outer wall temperature is 80°C, the most condensing power is about 920 watts, only one fifth the water flow. This leaves the steam output at over 2500 cc/sec. Assuming even a 2 cm tube inner diameter, that is over 8 m/sec output velocity, clearly far more than the Krivit video shows. If the thermal power of the device is below the dryout temperature, *it is necessarily true* that water must spill out of the chimney. Suppose for a moment that the device is actually performing above the dryout power of 5012 watts. When equilibrium is finally reached, the steam laving the lower boiler area is necessarily heated by the excess energy. As the calculations show, this steam heating in the boiler area results in a dramatic increase in chimney steam temperature. No such increase was ever observed in the Rossi device. It is therefore necessarily true the device never operated even a small amount above the dryout power of 5012 W. For the claim that the steam was dry to be true, that there was no percolator effects in the device itself, no water overflow, the device would have to operate at exactly the dryout power output *at all times*, because it never operates at thermal output above that condition. It is noteworthy that the dryout condition for such devices is when J/ gm applied is greater than or equal to the heat of vaporization per gram of water plus the heat required to raise a gram of water to boiling. Thus the formula Dryout condition in J/gm = Dcond = Hvap+(Bpoint-Wtemp)*Hcap is used in the computations. Given a constant flow F in gm/s is used the critical dryout power Pcrit is given by: Pcrit = F * Dcond If a thermal power of P watts is present, the critical flow rate Fcrit is given by: Fcrit = P / Dcond The critical values result in all the water being boiled with no significant power heating the steam itself, i.e. dryout conditions. If operation at even a very small percentage above dryout conditions is achieved then output steam temperature should be very significantly above boiling temperature. It is notable that if steam temperature is elevated well above boiling then some heat flux through the steam tube is required to drop the temperature to condensation range. This results in less condensation in the steam tube than operation right at dryout conditions. It seems obvious that percolator effects can be expected within the Rossi device even if operating with significant excess (nuclear) power, and that steam quality can not be expected to be anywhere near perfect. If the hose is removed it can be expected that water will be seen
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
On Aug 24, 2011, at 11:02 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Horace wrote: «Sparging steam into a bucket, though far better that other steam methods applied to date on Rossi's devices, and publicly disclosed, has numerous serious drawbacks, which have already been discussed.» And where they are discussed and by whom? I discussed it in response to you if I recall, and provided a reference to an actual application of a similar isoperibolic calorimetry application, specifically one where a post experiment temperature decline curve was determined, and the associated problems noted. There might be problems, and first is that steam can carry 10-20 times more heat than water coolant. But these are just problems that can be solved with creativity. Well, sure, if you competently design a calorimeter you can get rid of a lot of problems ... but then it is no longer just sparging steam into a bucket. I am sure that these are not relevant obstacles by any means. With your analysis, how do you explain up to 2.0°C temperature anomaly above local boiling point? That was observed in December test. —Jouni The problem with such an anomaly is there is no confirming source. It can be due to intermittent measurement error, such as momentary contact with a metal surface whereby heat is transferred directly through metal from the source to the thermometer. It can be a real temperature rise due to pressure increase in the hose due to water accumulation in the hose and the significant rise from the floor to the drain. It might be due to momentary electrical contact problems, corrosion and/or electro-chemical reactions. It could be due to digitizer or computer problems, parts overheating or operated out of spec. There are probably many other explanations to be ruled out as well. The correct thing to do is to do calorimetry on the output using a well calibrated professionally designed calorimeter independent of the device itself, preferably using dual methods. Then there is little need for issues like this that involve a lot of guesswork. Alarm bells should go off in your head when you see the amount of discussion this issue has had, and the lack of meaningful progress. Lots of response, but no progress. Just a lot of churning churning churning. I still find it incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and inexpensive science being applied. This is not a moon mission. I expect Rossi could have had competent high quality calorimetry done for free many months ago, and without divulging anything about his device. I find all this very depressing. Billions of people are likely going to be affected by timely development of the LENR field. If the Rossi thing is a bust it could cost a major setback for LENR research support, and millions of lives. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO
Dear Jed, I think the best patent agents can improve a situation but cannot reverse a lost situation to one of a winner. If he had a compound X acting as catalyst, he could easily get a patent protecting the E-cats against copying of the core with Compound X. Theoretically good, in practice a bit complicated and risky. peter On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it was just wrong approach. I agree. Plus I think a test of a 1 MW reactor is fraught with difficulties. It is much easier to test 1 to 10 kW. In my opinnion Rossi should have opensourced this technology back in 2009 when he filed patent application. I think what you mean here is that he should have revealed the technology in anticipation of getting a patent. Not that he should have given it away. Some people have suggested he should give it away because it is so important, and it will save so many lives. That would make him the most generous philanthropist in history. I think it is asking too much that he should be both a brilliant inventor and also a philanthropist. The problem with your plan may be that his patent is weak. He and Defkalion have both said they will rely on trade secrets to protect their intellectual property. That tells me his patent is weak. I do not know much about patents but his other patent seems weak. Very weak. Like trying to stop an automobile with a spider's web. I do know about trade secrets. I predict that a few months after corporations worldwide realize the Rossi reactors are real, this trade secret will be broken in dozens of corporations in the U.S., Europe, Japan and China. You can protect a trade secret for a product with a niche market that calls for inside knowledge, skill, and lots of art. Conventional catalysts are a good example. You cannot protect a trade secret for a rather simple device that is vital to every industry on earth, and that is worth hundreds of trillions of dollars over the next 100 years. I am only guessing here, but my impression is that Rossi is stuck. He seems to have no good method of protecting his intellectual property. That's awful. Assuming it works, it is the most valuable discovery in history and he deserves a trillion dollars in royalties. I fear he may get nothing. If he gets nothing in the end, this will be partly his own fault. His personality may be causing problems. But it seems to me his main problem is that this particular intellectual property is very tough to protect. I cannot think of a good marketing strategy. I wouldn't know how to do this. If he asked my advice, I would suggest he talk to experts in patent law and intellectual property. Perhaps he has talked to them. Maybe he has a good strategy. I don't see how doing a 1 MW demonstration would fit into a good strategy, but since I know nothing about his plans I cannot judge. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates
Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: Report of 28 april: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166569.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+28+April+2011.pdf As you can hear, the stroke frequency is around 32 strokes/minute, which equals to a maximum flow of 3.8 liters/h (= 12.1 * 32/100) From 28 april report: Tot flow in 3:06 (3.1) h 11707 grams, which means 3.8 kg/h (1 liter of water = 1 kg) In June video, the stroke frequency is 25 strokes/minute, equal to a maximum of 3 liter/h. But Rossi said to krivit a flow of 7 liter/h. . . . Ah, I see your point. I agree that if this is the same pump and if they did not weigh the water during the Krivit test, then the reported flow rate may be wrong. I suppose it is the same pump, but I wouldn't know. Lewan's report is more informative than Krivit's, isn't it? I wish that Krivit had told us less about the guy removing the coffee machine, and more about the instruments and procedures in the test. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The correct thing to do is to do calorimetry on the output using a well calibrated professionally designed calorimeter independent of the device itself . . . Defkalion claims they have done this. Alarm bells should go off in your head when you see the amount of discussion this issue has had, and the lack of meaningful progress. Lots of response, but no progress. Just a lot of churning churning churning. Hold on there! I assume you refer to the discussions and churning here, in this group. This has nothing to do with what Rossi and Defkalion are doing. Alarm bells should not go off because people here who have nothing to do with the research and no information about it are speculating. I still find it incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and inexpensive science being applied. What evidence do you have for this assertion? How do you know that no one has done proper calorimetry? In their web site discussion group, Defkalion claimed they did, and they claimed the Greek Min. of Energy did as well. No details or reports have been published, so perhaps it is not true, but can you be sure it is not true? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
One should stay away from E-Cat calorimetry and instead perform calorimetry on the actual nickel-hydrogen reaction. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The correct thing to do is to do calorimetry on the output using a well calibrated professionally designed calorimeter independent of the device itself . . . Defkalion claims they have done this. Alarm bells should go off in your head when you see the amount of discussion this issue has had, and the lack of meaningful progress. Lots of response, but no progress. Just a lot of churning churning churning. Hold on there! I assume you refer to the discussions and churning here, in this group. This has nothing to do with what Rossi and Defkalion are doing. Alarm bells should not go off because people here who have nothing to do with the research and no information about it are speculating. I still find it incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and inexpensive science being applied. What evidence do you have for this assertion? How do you know that no one has done proper calorimetry? In their web site discussion group, Defkalion claimed they did, and they claimed the Greek Min. of Energy did as well. No details or reports have been published, so perhaps it is not true, but can you be sure it is not true? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lomax argument that detailed data is required to confirm unknown phenomena
At 04:51 PM 8/24/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: I do not like to be argumentative. Perhaps I misunderstand Abd's argument here. But it seems to me he repeatedly claimed that in order to measure a mysterious source of heat from an unknown phonomenon, you must have detailed, time-sequenced data. It is not enough to have one number. Even if the people watching the meters or screen display can see that the temperature is stable, it is not enough to say 5°C for 18 hours. You have to have data points from 1080 minutes all showing more or less the same temperature. Weird. What I've said is that more data is better than less. Lomax claims that a single number would suffice for a well-established phenomenon, such as the heat measured from a combustion furnace. Semantic error: suffice for what? To test an operating furnace, that uses well-known design, that is tested by a protocol known to detect nearly all possible problems? Or to test a device which is new, which has unknown internal structure and operating methods, and which defies conventional wisdom? A single measure can be of interest, but rarely would it be conclusive. But it cannot be relied upon for something no one has ever seen before, such as a sample of radium in 1898 or a cold fusion reactor today. If Madam Curie had reported only that the sample remains warm that should have been rejected. She would have to say it remains 1.3°C warmer than ambient in a well-insulated box, and here are 1000 data points to prove it. One data point, or the temperature measured once a day for a week would not prove the point. Curie's discovery might have had another possible cause that could cause some warmth, for sure. I don't get this. As I said, perhaps I misunderstand. Yes, you do. But I think that if the method is well established, and the data is manifestly 1 or 2 dimensional, it makes no sense to say it must be presented in more detail because the phenomenon being measured cannot be explained. A well-established method is designed to measure something that is well-known. There are ways to treat the Rossi reactor as a black box, and measuring the heat from a black box is reasonably well understood. But methods that one would use for this were not used. Rather, as an example, temperature was measured inside the boundaries of what we'd call the black box. The instruments prove that radium and the Rossi reactor produce stable, unvarying heat. That much we know. No, we don't know that at all. Jed, sometimes I can't figure out where you get this nonsense. We sort-of-know that the temperature in the reactor chimney is sort-of-constant, once the thing reaches operating condition. We do not know, at all, that the heat is stable, unvarying. Indeed, we have some (inconclusive) evidence that it is not. It's practically a consensus now, haven't you noticed? The E-Cat/test design heat output could vary wildly and yet the chimney temperature would remain stable, over a very wide range of heat generation values. All that would vary is the steam quality. (Here, steam quality refers to the ratio of vapor to total water in the effluent, whether the water is as dispersed droplets or more amalgamated liquid.) The basic point here is that we have been given only a narrow window into the operation of the E-Cat. Even if we no earthly idea what causes the heat, we can still measure it, quantify it, and characterize it as stable. We could. Jed, isn't this obvious? If you want to characterize something as stable, don't you need more than one measurement? Even if it is not specifically reported, a statement that the temperature of something remained within the range of X to Y is really based on many measurements, and given the ubiquity of cheap logging devices, we are quite accustomed to seeing, in papers, graphs of temperature. Effectively continuous measurement. Rossi's possible manipulation of the input power points out something: what if the temperature were being logged during the changes he may have made? Was there an anomalous change in temperature corresponding to the times when the output became noisier? What was the input power? Again, this could have been continuously logged. It wasn't. Or in the case of the Mizuno glow discharge effect, we can sure that it is extremely unstable. [...] In short, you can measure the effect of a phenomenon even if you have no idea what causes it. Of course you can. However, if the phenomenon is not well-established, i.e,. not observed with massive redundancy already, we don't necessarily know what to measure in order to understand it. You are perfectly aware that Rossi chose to use a method of measuring heat that was utterly inconclusive. Assumptions were made about steam that just weren't true, for example, that a slightly elevated temperature meant necessarily that the steam was dry. That would be adequate only if the pressure were
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO
On Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:21 AM Peter wrote [snip] I do know about trade secrets. I predict that a few months after corporations worldwide realize the Rossi reactors are real, this trade secret will be broken in dozens of corporations in the U.S., Europe, Japan and China. You can protect a trade secret for a product with a niche market that calls for inside knowledge, skill, and lots of art. Conventional catalysts are a good example. You cannot protect a trade secret for a rather simple device that is vital to every industry on earth, and that is worth hundreds of trillions of dollars over the next 100 years.[/snip] Peter, I would agree that Rossi is stuck with a weak patent. If the Rossi trade secret is the only catalyst that will work then he is indeed very lucky as Jones Beene surmised BUT in the very unlikely event that he has the theory correct then he would indeed deserve all the marbles. IMHO the lengthy communications online and his investment with University of Bologna reveals an ongoing struggle to leverage the secret recipe into revealing the theory. He admitted as much initially but then later tried to convince us he understood the underlying theory - He may honestly believe he has figured it out but without a comprehensive explanation that starts with how exactly the lattice environment and defects initiate the process, it will not survive the rigors to which such a paradigm shifting patent will be subjected. His procedures and materials are not even first generation without the stable control loop that broke the contract with Defkalion. I predict that the turmoil will eventually fall out to a couple major contenders like the Mac [Mills] and PC [Italian researchers] with a third open source flavor like Linux based on expired patents and grand fathered by existing enthusiasts researching the Patterson and Meyers cells. I hope Rossi, Panatelli and Focardi all get some measure of reward but between patent litigation and human nature they are likely to die broken men if they don't accept a big industry buy out. Regards Fran From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:21 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO Dear Jed, I think the best patent agents can improve a situation but cannot reverse a lost situation to one of a winner. If he had a compound X acting as catalyst, he could easily get a patent protecting the E-cats against copying of the core with Compound X. Theoretically good, in practice a bit complicated and risky. peter On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.commailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.commailto:jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it was just wrong approach. I agree. Plus I think a test of a 1 MW reactor is fraught with difficulties. It is much easier to test 1 to 10 kW. In my opinnion Rossi should have opensourced this technology back in 2009 when he filed patent application. I think what you mean here is that he should have revealed the technology in anticipation of getting a patent. Not that he should have given it away. Some people have suggested he should give it away because it is so important, and it will save so many lives. That would make him the most generous philanthropist in history. I think it is asking too much that he should be both a brilliant inventor and also a philanthropist. The problem with your plan may be that his patent is weak. He and Defkalion have both said they will rely on trade secrets to protect their intellectual property. That tells me his patent is weak. I do not know much about patents but his other patent seems weak. Very weak. Like trying to stop an automobile with a spider's web. I do know about trade secrets. I predict that a few months after corporations worldwide realize the Rossi reactors are real, this trade secret will be broken in dozens of corporations in the U.S., Europe, Japan and China. You can protect a trade secret for a product with a niche market that calls for inside knowledge, skill, and lots of art. Conventional catalysts are a good example. You cannot protect a trade secret for a rather simple device that is vital to every industry on earth, and that is worth hundreds of trillions of dollars over the next 100 years. I am only guessing here, but my impression is that Rossi is stuck. He seems to have no good method of protecting his intellectual property. That's awful. Assuming it works, it is the most valuable discovery in history and he deserves a trillion dollars in royalties. I fear he may get nothing. If he gets nothing in the end, this will be partly his own fault. His personality may be causing problems. But it seems to me his main problem is that this particular intellectual property is very tough to protect. I cannot think of a
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: ** One should stay away from E-Cat calorimetry and instead perform calorimetry on the actual nickel-hydrogen reaction. What is the difference? An eCat is a reactor vessel, and so is a Defkalion reactor. You can only perform calorimetry on a vessel of some sort. Are you suggesting they should examine the powder itself as it reacts, with some sort of window in the vessel? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:I meant confidence that light has a speed
At 06:55 PM 8/24/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is an interesting footnote to history. I believe the speed of sound was not established with this much precision until later. This was done by assuming for simplicity that the speed of light is close to infinite over short distances, and firing a cannon. The time delay from the flash to the sound of the explosion gave the speed of sound. This was done in 1826 at Lake Geneva to establish a value to within 1% of the modern figure. I don't know how they recorded it. I guess by pressing buttons to start and stop a timer. You would think this would mainly record human reaction time but I suppose it depends on how far away the cannon was. The reaction time would affect both start and stop timing, probably about equally. Only if the interval were short such that variation in reaction time would be a major chunk of it would reaction time be a serious problem.
Re: [Vo]:Lomax argument that detailed data is required to confirm unknown phenomena
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: The instruments prove that radium and the Rossi reactor produce stable, unvarying heat. That much we know. No, we don't know that at all. Jed, sometimes I can't figure out where you get this nonsense. We sort-of-know that the temperature in the reactor chimney is sort-of-constant, once the thing reaches operating condition. We do not know, at all, that the heat is stable, unvarying. Indeed, we have some (inconclusive) evidence that it is not. It's practically a consensus now, haven't you noticed? The E-Cat/test design heat output could vary wildly and yet the chimney temperature would remain stable, over a very wide range of heat generation values. All that would vary is the steam quality. (Here, steam quality refers to the ratio of vapor to total water in the effluent, whether the water is as dispersed droplets or more amalgamated liquid.) I was discussing the flowing water test, not the steam tests. The flowing water test produced a stable temperature over 18 hours. Defkalion says their tests with high-boiling point liquids also produce stable, steady-state temperatures. My point is that if a temperature is stable, say 5°C over 18 hours, that is the most information you can get. Listing that same temperature thousands of times will not increase your knowledge. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates
if this is the same pump It’s the same dirty pump as you can see from videos and photos. if they did not weigh the water Again, is a “Rossi said”. Lewan's report is more informative than Krivit's, isn't it? In krivit’s video Rossi said that water flow was 7 kg/h. Rossi is lying. From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 3:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: Report of 28 april: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166569.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+28+April+2011.pdf As you can hear, the stroke frequency is around 32 strokes/minute, which equals to a maximum flow of 3.8 liters/h (= 12.1 * 32/100) From 28 april report: Tot flow in 3:06 (3.1) h 11707 grams, which means 3.8 kg/h (1 liter of water = 1 kg) In June video, the stroke frequency is 25 strokes/minute, equal to a maximum of 3 liter/h. But Rossi said to krivit a flow of 7 liter/h. . . . Ah, I see your point. I agree that if this is the same pump and if they did not weigh the water during the Krivit test, then the reported flow rate may be wrong. I suppose it is the same pump, but I wouldn't know. Lewan's report is more informative than Krivit's, isn't it? I wish that Krivit had told us less about the guy removing the coffee machine, and more about the instruments and procedures in the test. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lomax argument that detailed data is required to confirm unknown phenomena
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: You are perfectly aware that Rossi chose to use a method of measuring heat that was utterly inconclusive. You meant the steam method. I am aware that some people think it is inconclusive. As far as I know, experts in calorimetry and steam think it is conclusive. But the whole point is that when Rossi and Levi learned that people think it is inclusive, _they did another test with flowing water_. They said the purpose was to put to rest doubts about the steam tests. That test produced a stable temperature. They watched the temperature display and so no major fluctuations, so the heat must have been stable. Defkalion reports the same thing. No one has raised a valid objections to the flowing water test as far as I know. Your objection seem to be that you want to see the number 5°C repeated a thousand times. Go ahead and use a word processor to repeat it yourself: 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lomax argument that detailed data is required to confirm unknown phenomena
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: A single measure can be of interest, but rarely would it be conclusive. This may be a misunderstanding. They did not perform a single measurement. They measured repeatedly, and recorded the numbers. The numbers were about the same in all cases, ~5°C, so that is the only number they reported. A single measure seems to imply they read the temperature only once. Perhaps this means they read only one parameter. That isn't true either. They read the instantaneous flow, total flow, input power, and inlet and outlet temperatures. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
I'm suggesting what I believe many others have. What should be eliminated is complications like anything flowing, anything shanging phase, heat leakage. If we have a well characterized vessel (i.e. we know heat conduction properties well we can use it to contain the reaction. Then we might be able to charcterize heat flow from it better. This might also be done by solding the vessel in a vacuum and measuring the IR spectrum to characterize radiation. It could then be compared with nickel or another metal in the vessel with an inert gas (maybe deuterium). After intensive investigations there should be a conclusion possible. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: One should stay away from E-Cat calorimetry and instead perform calorimetry on the actual nickel-hydrogen reaction. What is the difference? An eCat is a reactor vessel, and so is a Defkalion reactor. You can only perform calorimetry on a vessel of some sort. Are you suggesting they should examine the powder itself as it reacts, with some sort of window in the vessel? - Jed
[Vo]:Re: The Percolator Effect
can you be sure it is not true? Cen we be sure that we are not inside “Thge Matrix”? From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 3:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The correct thing to do is to do calorimetry on the output using a well calibrated professionally designed calorimeter independent of the device itself . . . Defkalion claims they have done this. Alarm bells should go off in your head when you see the amount of discussion this issue has had, and the lack of meaningful progress. Lots of response, but no progress. Just a lot of churning churning churning. Hold on there! I assume you refer to the discussions and churning here, in this group. This has nothing to do with what Rossi and Defkalion are doing. Alarm bells should not go off because people here who have nothing to do with the research and no information about it are speculating. I still find it incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and inexpensive science being applied. What evidence do you have for this assertion? How do you know that no one has done proper calorimetry? In their web site discussion group, Defkalion claimed they did, and they claimed the Greek Min. of Energy did as well. No details or reports have been published, so perhaps it is not true, but can you be sure it is not true? - Jed
[Vo]:The day after Rossi
What will happen after Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer will be proved as a hoax? We will ever seen the “rossi-belivers”? We will see lenr-canr website closed, after this stomach punch? We will see cold fusion researchers stop doing sloppy calorimetry and focusing more on STRONG nuclear radiations before publishing papers?
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
I have answered this question yesterday on my blog. and have announced it here. Not the end of the world, not the end of LENR Peter On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.comwrote: What will happen after Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer will be proved as a hoax? We will ever seen the “rossi-belivers”? We will see lenr-canr website closed, after this stomach punch? We will see cold fusion researchers stop doing sloppy calorimetry and focusing more on STRONG nuclear radiations before publishing papers? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO
Jed wrote the cited text, not I. Without a patent Rossi is vulnerable, he made good publicity however has a very weak strategy and a dreadful reputation management.. Peter On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: On Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:21 AM Peter wrote [snip] I do know about trade secrets. I predict that a few months after corporations worldwide realize the Rossi reactors are real, this trade secret will be broken in dozens of corporations in the U.S., Europe, Japan and China. You can protect a trade secret for a product with a niche market that calls for inside knowledge, skill, and lots of art. Conventional catalysts are a good example. You cannot protect a trade secret for a rather simple device that is vital to every industry on earth, and that is worth hundreds of trillions of dollars over the next 100 years.[/snip] ** ** Peter, I would agree that Rossi is “stuck” with a weak patent. If the Rossi “trade secret” is the only catalyst that will work then he is indeed very lucky as Jones Beene surmised BUT in the very unlikely event that he has the theory correct then he would indeed deserve all the marbles. IMHO the lengthy communications online and his investment with University of Bologna reveals an ongoing struggle to leverage the secret recipe into revealing the theory. He admitted as much initially but then later tried to convince us he understood the underlying theory – He may honestly believe he has figured it out but without a comprehensive explanation that starts with how exactly the lattice environment and defects initiate the process, it will not survive the rigors to which such a paradigm shifting patent will be subjected. His procedures and materials are not even first generation without the stable control loop tha t broke the contract with Defkalion. * *** ** ** I predict that the turmoil will eventually fall out to a couple major contenders like the Mac [Mills] and PC [Italian researchers] with a third open source flavor like Linux based on expired patents and grand fathered by existing enthusiasts researching the Patterson and Meyers cells. I hope Rossi, Panatelli and Focardi all get some measure of reward but between patent litigation and human nature they are likely to die broken men if they don’t accept a big industry buy out. Regards Fran ** ** ** ** *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:21 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO ** ** Dear Jed, I think the best patent agents can improve a situation but cannot reverse a lost situation to one of a winner. If he had a compound X acting as catalyst, he could easily get a patent protecting the E-cats against copying of the core with Compound X. Theoretically good, in practice a bit complicated and risky. peter On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it was just wrong approach. I agree. Plus I think a test of a 1 MW reactor is fraught with difficulties. It is much easier to test 1 to 10 kW. ** ** In my opinnion Rossi should have opensourced this technology back in 2009 when he filed patent application. ** ** I think what you mean here is that he should have revealed the technology in anticipation of getting a patent. Not that he should have given it away. Some people have suggested he should give it away because it is so important, and it will save so many lives. That would make him the most generous philanthropist in history. I think it is asking too much that he should be both a brilliant inventor and also a philanthropist. ** ** The problem with your plan may be that his patent is weak. He and Defkalion have both said they will rely on trade secrets to protect their intellectual property. That tells me his patent is weak. ** ** I do not know much about patents but his other patent seems weak. Very weak. Like trying to stop an automobile with a spider's web. ** ** I do know about trade secrets. I predict that a few months after corporations worldwide realize the Rossi reactors are real, this trade secret will be broken in dozens of corporations in the U.S., Europe, Japan and China. You can protect a trade secret for a product with a niche market that calls for inside knowledge, skill, and lots of art. Conventional catalysts are a good example. You cannot protect a trade secret for a rather simple device that is vital to every industry on earth, and that is worth hundreds of trillions of dollars over the next 100 years. ** ** I am only guessing here, but my impression is that Rossi is stuck. He see ms to have no
Re: [Vo]:Lomax argument that detailed data is required to confirm unknown phenomena
At 07:48 AM 8/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: No one has raised a valid objections to the flowing water test as far as I know. Your objection seem to be that you want to see the number 5°C repeated a thousand times. Go ahead and use a word processor to repeat it yourself: 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C. 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C If I saw THAT I'd yell FAKE. 5.01°C 4.98°C 4.98°C 5.00°C ... I once missed a physics lab, and cooked the numbers. I was WAY off the actual result (they changed the compostion slightly each year) -- but my fake showed such a good understanding of the likely error distribution that they gave me a pass. | Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said | .. and given the ubiquity of cheap logging devices .. Ah .. the cheap logging devices for which they lost the results? (Jan).
Re: [Vo]:Lomax argument that detailed data is required to confirm unknown phenomena
Alan J Fletcher wrote: 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C 5°C If I saw THAT I'd yell FAKE. 5.01°C 4.98°C 4.98°C 5.00°C ... Yes, I was kidding. | Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said | .. and given the ubiquity of cheap logging devices .. Ah .. the cheap logging devices for which they lost the results? (Jan). I haven't heard that it was cheap, but it did manage to lose the results. They said they recorded the experiment on video in February. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
On Aug 25, 2011, at 5:59 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The correct thing to do is to do calorimetry on the output using a well calibrated professionally designed calorimeter independent of the device itself . . . Defkalion claims they have done this. Alarm bells should go off in your head when you see the amount of discussion this issue has had, and the lack of meaningful progress. Lots of response, but no progress. Just a lot of churning churning churning. Hold on there! I assume you refer to the discussions and churning here, in this group. You assume wrongly. I refer in addition to Rossi's blog, the CMNS news list, Krivit's blog, public press, etc., etc. This has nothing to do with what Rossi and Defkalion are doing. Alarm bells should not go off because people here who have nothing to do with the research and no information about it are speculating. I refer to the fact that repeated public demos are made and extensive argument and even bluster, ad hominem, etc. is put up on the issue of calorimetry, without even the most nominal effort or expense to publicly examine the heat output independently of the E-Cat. I still find it incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and inexpensive science being applied. What evidence do you have for this assertion? How do you know that no one has done proper calorimetry? In their web site discussion group, Defkalion claimed they did, and they claimed the Greek Min. of Energy did as well. No details or reports have been published, so perhaps it is not true, but can you be sure it is not true? - Jed The above statement is in regard to the repeated public demos, and continued public discussion - the public information which can potentially attract investors. It is not relevant what has supposedly happened behind the scenes. What matters is the fact that there has been continual public interfacing with nothing but talk talk talk, continual stirring of the public relations pot, concurrent with repeated flawed demos, when even an amateur level of attention to calorimetry in the public demos could potentially blow the lid off on the prospects for investment, for both Rossi and others. Serious criticism by serious scientists, that could easily (and potentially very inexpensively) be answered experimentally, is met with true believer fluff and smokescreens from both Rossi and the true believer peanut gallery. There is serious reason to doubt any useable nuclear heat is being produced at all. There is very good reason to believe liquid water is being spurted out of the steam exit port of the E-Cat, even if a large amount of nuclear energy is actually being created. This steam quality issue has not been addressed, despite intense public debate and criticism by serious scientists. The demos are highly flawed, to the point of demonstrating nothing. No amount of bluster and name calling can change that. Krivit has it right in his seven points. An obvious question is why would Rossi would engage in such time consuming public interfacing when there is so much to do technically? I think the answer has to do with money. Hopefully I have it right on the points I made quantitatively with regard to the percolator effect. There has thus far been no appropriate reasoned response on the quantitative issues my post discusses, main points of my post. I suppose there is good reason for that; it is a lot easier to engage in blather instead of doing any real work. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
Joe Catania wrote: I'm suggesting what I believe many others have. What should be eliminated is complications like anything flowing, anything shanging phase, heat leakage. Phase changes are a problem, although ice calorimetry has been around for a long time. The only kind of calorimetry that happens without heat leakage is bomb calorimetry, which can only be done for brief reactions or it explodes (hence the name). If we have a well characterized vessel (i.e. we know heat conduction properties well we can use it to contain the reaction. Then we might be able to charcterize heat flow from it better. This might also be done by solding the vessel in a vacuum and measuring the IR spectrum to characterize radiation. I do not see how this would be any better than flow calorimetry, which is what Defkalion uses, and what Levi did in the 18-hour test. For a kilowatt-scale reaction I think that is the best method. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates
How do you know that 1 click = 1 pump?
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Hold on there! I assume you refer to the discussions and churning here, in this group. You assume wrongly. I refer in addition to Rossi's blog, the CMNS news list, Krivit's blog, public press, etc., etc. Ah, well these other forums are also populated by people who know practically nothing. Rossi's blog is colorful but it does not say much because, as Rossi says, he cannot reveal trade secrets. The above statement is in regard to the repeated public demos, and continued public discussion - the public information which can potentially attract investors. Brief public demos have been repeated 4 times in 8 months, I think. That is a small number. Anyone would invest in this based on those demos would be insane, in my opinion. It is not relevant what has supposedly happened behind the scenes. Unless you know what is happening behind the scenes how can you judge whether it is relevant to potential investors? Assuming Defkalion has done what they claim in their blog and White Paper, with tests conducted by the Greek government and so on, why would you say this is irrelevant? It seems to me that such tests would be far more relevant and important to an investor than the 4 public demonstrations, which were hardly more convincing than a typical trade-show demonstration. (Not to say there is anything wrong with a trade-show demo for the purposes such demos serve, but in that kind of venue you cannot do a serious test or a serious evaluation.) What matters is the fact that there has been continual public interfacing with nothing but talk talk talk, continual stirring of the public relations pot, concurrent with repeated flawed demos, when even an amateur level of attention to calorimetry in the public demos could potentially blow the lid off on the prospects for investment, for both Rossi and others. If Defkalion has actually done what they claim, that should impress any serious investor who is shown the experimental data and the machines in operation. That would not be talk, talk, talk. If they have not done what they claim, and there are no tests underway in the Greek government, they are engaged in fraud. I do not see any middle ground here. Either they have done what you demand and their work makes the public demos irrelevant to investors, or they are frauds. An obvious question is why would Rossi would engage in such time consuming public interfacing when there is so much to do technically? If you mean writing his blog, I believe he does it for relaxation. It is a hobby. He has not spent much time doing demos. A few hours over 8 months. He told me he does not have time to do a more extensive test than the kind he showed Krivit. In my opinion, that test was so brief and so inadequate it would have been better not to do it at all. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
Pretty much the total destruction of all confidence I have in LENR. If so many competent people in the field were cheated that easily by Rossi, I can expect much worse from everyone, even in the sense of self deception.
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
Thank you Horace, I think you really have driven the final nails into the Rossi coffin, with your exemplary analysis of the percolator effect, along with cogent remarks about the endless wan discussions. within mutual service, Rich Murray
Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates
On Aug 25, 2011 5:45 PM, Mattia Rizzi wrote: In krivit’s video Rossi said that water flow was 7 kg/h. Rossi is lying. This is obvious. But question is why Rossi did lie in such a trivial way that everyone can see it? Lie was so obvious, that it cannot be because Rossi wanted to mislead somebody, because he could have trivially faked the demo with hidden power source. It only lasted for 20 min. Therefore we must conclude that it was all planned from the beginning that Krivit will expose this lie. Question is why such a plan? I must remind you all, that all public E-Cat demonstrations could have been faked with 200g hydrogen bottle. Such a small bottle can be hidden easily, but I am sure that David Copperfield could have come up even more clever illusions, if this had been the point. Therefore scientific relevance of public demonstrations is zero. —Joubi
[Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates
It’s a dosimetric pump. In every stroke it can inject a maximum volume of 2ml of water (volume is regulable) It’s regulable from 20 to 100 strokes/minute. So with a 100 strokes/min and a volume of 2ml, the pump is running witha flow of 12 liter/h. With 25 strokes/min, the pump is running up to 3liter/h (but it can be lower since volume is adjustable). From: Daniel Rocha Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 7:05 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates How do you know that 1 click = 1 pump?
[Vo]:Rossi's rubber hose
The best ratio of diameters OD/ID I can come up with for Rossi's hose is 23/13, based on the attached png clip from Krivit's film of 14 June, 2011. Anyone know what the actual dimension's of his hose are? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ inline: HoseTip.png
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
Robert Parks will be, once again, smug as a bug. Frank Z -Original Message- From: Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 25, 2011 7:26 am Subject: [Vo]:The day after Rossi What will happen after Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer will be proved as a hoax? We will ever seen the “rossi-belivers”? We will see lenr-canr website closed, after this stomach punch? We will see cold fusion researchers stop doing sloppy calorimetry and focusing more on STRONG nuclear radiations before publishing papers?
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pretty much the total destruction of all confidence I have in LENR. If so many competent people in the field were cheated that easily by Rossi, I can expect much worse from everyone, even in the sense of self deception. Some questions: How many competent people in the field are convinced by Rossi? How many stand to be cheated in any sense? As far as I know, you can count them on one hand. A lot of people are paying close attention. Many, including me, think that the weight of evidence is in favor of the claims, based on previous Ni-H claims and so on. Some people from outside the field say they are convinced, such as Levi, and EK. They have actually performed tests themselves so they can judge the issue better than most people, and they have more reason to be convinced. If I had observed the 18-hour test in person, I would probably be 100% convinced. (I would also have reported it in much more detail than Levi has done, but that's another story.) If Levi, EK and a few others who have not previously had anything to do with cold fusion have been fooled by Rossi, why would this reflect badly on people such as McKubre, Miles or Fleischmann? As far as I know, they have not said they believe this. They have not said they don't believe it either. I have been in contact with them. They are keenly interested, of course. Who wouldn't be? I myself am waiting for better test results before reaching any final conclusion. I lean strongly toward it being real, as I said. But as I have also said repeatedly, Defkalion has published nothing so I cannot judge their claims. The 18-hour flow test was good enough for its purpose, which was for Levi to decide whether to go ahead with more testing or not. It was pretty convincing and I have not seen any reason to doubt it, but no one familiar with experimental science would bet the farm on one test of this nature. If Rossi turns out to be a fraud, or hugely mistaken for some reason, the skeptics here will deserve no credit for predicting this. They have not discovered a single valid reason to doubt his work that was not obvious to everyone, including me. None of their criticism were any more informed or hard hitting than Celani's, Storms', mine, or others who lean toward believing this. As far as I know, skeptics have not suggested any improvements to the test techniques that Storms, I and others have not already suggested. The memo quoted here recently about the steam sparge test, for example, is something I wrote to Rossi himself months ago. I suggested he let me do that test during a visit to his lab. I planned to spend all day, repeating it 5 or 10 times, and I also wanted to do to a flowing water test. Rossi turned me down, as I reported here. I circulated that memo to various other people and I may have published it here. It was not a bit confidential. It is not a bit original, either. I did not come up with the idea. As the original memo text says, I learned this technique at Hydrodynamics. If Rossi is wrong, the skeptics will NOT have demonstrated any special insight or ability to predict an outcome. Most experiments fail. Most results are wrong. Most product RD is scrapped before the product reaches the market. If you always bet that a new experimental result will be wrong, you will be on the winning side most of the time. This is Robert Park's technique. He predicts an outcome that everyone knows is likely, and then he takes credit when things turn out as everyone knew they probably would. This is like predicting that Las Vegas slot machines will win more money than they lose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
«LENR is another avenue. It's not just about Rossi. If the Rossi thing doesn't happen, then maybe something else will. Rossi has brought a lot of attention to the field. Any researchers who have a legitimate claim are going to benefit from this.» –Michael A. Nelson, Nasa On Aug 25, 2011 8:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pretty much the total destruction of all confidence I have in LENR. If so many competent people in the field were cheated that easily by Rossi, I can expect much worse from everyone, even in the sense of self deception. Some questions: How many competent people in the field are convinced by Rossi? How many stand to be cheated in any sense? As far as I know, you can count them on one hand. A lot of people are paying close attention. Many, including me, think that the weight of evidence is in favor of the claims, based on previous Ni-H claims and so on. Some people from outside the field say they are convinced, such as Levi, and EK. They have actually performed tests themselves so they can judge the issue better than most people, and they have more reason to be convinced. If I had observed the 18-hour test in person, I would probably be 100% convinced. (I would also have reported it in much more detail than Levi has done, but that's another story.) If Levi, EK and a few others who have not previously had anything to do with cold fusion have been fooled by Rossi, why would this reflect badly on people such as McKubre, Miles or Fleischmann? As far as I know, they have not said they believe this. They have not said they don't believe it either. I have been in contact with them. They are keenly interested, of course. Who wouldn't be? I myself am waiting for better test results before reaching any final conclusion. I lean strongly toward it being real, as I said. But as I have also said repeatedly, Defkalion has published nothing so I cannot judge their claims. The 18-hour flow test was good enough for its purpose, which was for Levi to decide whether to go ahead with more testing or not. It was pretty convincing and I have not seen any reason to doubt it, but no one familiar with experimental science would bet the farm on one test of this nature. If Rossi turns out to be a fraud, or hugely mistaken for some reason, the skeptics here will deserve no credit for predicting this. They have not discovered a single valid reason to doubt his work that was not obvious to everyone, including me. None of their criticism were any more informed or hard hitting than Celani's, Storms', mine, or others who lean toward believing this. As far as I know, skeptics have not suggested any improvements to the test techniques that Storms, I and others have not already suggested. The memo quoted here recently about the steam sparge test, for example, is something I wrote to Rossi himself months ago. I suggested he let me do that test during a visit to his lab. I planned to spend all day, repeating it 5 or 10 times, and I also wanted to do to a flowing water test. Rossi turned me down, as I reported here. I circulated that memo to various other people and I may have published it here. It was not a bit confidential. It is not a bit original, either. I did not come up with the idea. As the original memo text says, I learned this technique at Hydrodynamics. If Rossi is wrong, the skeptics will NOT have demonstrated any special insight or ability to predict an outcome. Most experiments fail. Most results are wrong. Most product RD is scrapped before the product reaches the market. If you always bet that a new experimental result will be wrong, you will be on the winning side most of the time. This is Robert Park's technique. He predicts an outcome that everyone knows is likely, and then he takes credit when things turn out as everyone knew they probably would. This is like predicting that Las Vegas slot machines will win more money than they lose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's rubber hose
Here the thermal conductivity for rubber is given at about 0.14 W/(m K): http://www.monachos.gr/eng/resources/thermo/conductivity.htm I notice that Rick Cantwell used 0.2 W/(m K): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXTl8z_2Uqo Anyone have a reference to a better number than 0.14 W/(m K). Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:People such as Edison, Jobs, Whitman and Rossi are not always lying when they say things that are obviously false
Jouni Valkonen wrote: On Aug 25, 2011 5:45 PM, Mattia Rizzi wrote: In krivit’s video Rossi said that water flow was 7 kg/h. Rossi is lying. This is obvious. But question is why Rossi did lie in such a trivial way that everyone can see it? I do not find it so obvious. It seems likely to me that Rossi was confused, mistaken or careless, or perhaps that Rizzi has made a mistake and the flow really was what Rossi quoted. I cannot think of any reason why Rossi would lie about this, or any advantage that would accrue to him. On the other hand I know he is often careless, and he constantly says things that are contradictory, as you see in the list I compiled here: http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi%27s_Hints If he was lying about these contradictory statements, he would erase his old blog messages and other proof that he contradicted himself. He would take care not to claim that he has a PhD from a non-existent university, and an adviser at a university who is not listed at that university. He would cover his tracks, and try not to look like a flagrant liar. I do not think Rossi cares about the public record. He doesn't care about what he said before, or the fact that he contradicted himself. He has Walt Whitman's point of view: I celebrate myself, and sing myself, And what I assume you shall assume . . . Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.) I would not call this lying. I would call it free-form thinking aloud, or letting your imagination get away with you. Many famous and creative people do this. They do it constantly. They infuriate their friends, investors and employees. Famous examples of people who frequently made bombastic claims and contradicted themselves from one day to the next include Thomas Edison and Steve Jobs. Here is an example from Jobs in his 2005 commencement address at Stanford U. He described how he learned calligraphy in college, and from that he says: None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life.But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it's likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html If Jobs seriously believes that without him there would be no proportional fonts in modern computers, he is delusional. I do not think he is delusional. I don't think he is lying either. He is exaggerating his own accomplishments in his own mind, and he is used to having people around him who nod and agree with whatever he claims. It is a personality weakness, but to call it a lie is an overstatement, because even Jobs knows this isn't true, and he must know he is not fooling anyone. He is just spouting off. (By the way, that is a fine speech despite this moment of egomania.) It is not necessarily the mark of genius to do this kind thing. Many stupid people who have never accomplished anything also do this. However, being a genius does not preclude this behavior. I think it is caused by people who see what is in their own minds more clearly than outside reality. Edison was like that, by all accounts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
Jouni Valkonen wrote: «LENR is another avenue. It's not just about Rossi. If the Rossi thing doesn't happen, then maybe something else will. Rossi has brought a lot of attention to the field. Any researchers who have a legitimate claim are going to benefit from this.» –Michael A. Nelson, Nasa Hear, hear! I agree with Nelson. There is no such thing as bad publicity. Look at Kim Kardashian who has made $35 million just by being famous, with no apparent assets other than her ass. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
On 11-08-25 01:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: If Rossi turns out to be a fraud, or hugely mistaken for some reason, the skeptics here will deserve no credit for predicting this. Getting a little defensive, are we, Jed?
[Vo]:Re: The day after Rossi
They have not discovered a single valid reason to doubt his work There is a problem: if you don’t want to watch the reasons, then you can’t see them. Jed, if the enrgy catalyzer will be proved as a hoax (or Rossi diseapper from the public scenes [even with moneys]) then you will close the LENR-CANR website? Since you have done so much support for Rossi... From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 7:56 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pretty much the total destruction of all confidence I have in LENR. If so many competent people in the field were cheated that easily by Rossi, I can expect much worse from everyone, even in the sense of self deception. Some questions: How many competent people in the field are convinced by Rossi? How many stand to be cheated in any sense? As far as I know, you can count them on one hand. A lot of people are paying close attention. Many, including me, think that the weight of evidence is in favor of the claims, based on previous Ni-H claims and so on. Some people from outside the field say they are convinced, such as Levi, and EK. They have actually performed tests themselves so they can judge the issue better than most people, and they have more reason to be convinced. If I had observed the 18-hour test in person, I would probably be 100% convinced. (I would also have reported it in much more detail than Levi has done, but that's another story.) If Levi, EK and a few others who have not previously had anything to do with cold fusion have been fooled by Rossi, why would this reflect badly on people such as McKubre, Miles or Fleischmann? As far as I know, they have not said they believe this. They have not said they don't believe it either. I have been in contact with them. They are keenly interested, of course. Who wouldn't be? I myself am waiting for better test results before reaching any final conclusion. I lean strongly toward it being real, as I said. But as I have also said repeatedly, Defkalion has published nothing so I cannot judge their claims. The 18-hour flow test was good enough for its purpose, which was for Levi to decide whether to go ahead with more testing or not. It was pretty convincing and I have not seen any reason to doubt it, but no one familiar with experimental science would bet the farm on one test of this nature. If Rossi turns out to be a fraud, or hugely mistaken for some reason, the skeptics here will deserve no credit for predicting this. They have not discovered a single valid reason to doubt his work that was not obvious to everyone, including me. None of their criticism were any more informed or hard hitting than Celani's, Storms', mine, or others who lean toward believing this. As far as I know, skeptics have not suggested any improvements to the test techniques that Storms, I and others have not already suggested. The memo quoted here recently about the steam sparge test, for example, is something I wrote to Rossi himself months ago. I suggested he let me do that test during a visit to his lab. I planned to spend all day, repeating it 5 or 10 times, and I also wanted to do to a flowing water test. Rossi turned me down, as I reported here. I circulated that memo to various other people and I may have published it here. It was not a bit confidential. It is not a bit original, either. I did not come up with the idea. As the original memo text says, I learned this technique at Hydrodynamics. If Rossi is wrong, the skeptics will NOT have demonstrated any special insight or ability to predict an outcome. Most experiments fail. Most results are wrong. Most product RD is scrapped before the product reaches the market. If you always bet that a new experimental result will be wrong, you will be on the winning side most of the time. This is Robert Park's technique. He predicts an outcome that everyone knows is likely, and then he takes credit when things turn out as everyone knew they probably would. This is like predicting that Las Vegas slot machines will win more money than they lose. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: People such as Edison, Jobs, Whitman and Rossi are not always lying when they say things that are obviously false
Jed, what is your academic background? From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 8:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:People such as Edison, Jobs, Whitman and Rossi are not always lying when they say things that are obviously false I wrote: If Jobs seriously believes that without him there would be no proportional fonts in modern computers, he is delusional. . . . to call it a lie is an overstatement, because even Jobs knows this isn't true, and he must know he is not fooling anyone. I mean he is not fooling anyone who knows the history of computers. Jobs got the idea for the Mac when he saw a Xerox Parc computer. The Parc had proportional fonts, and many other innovations that Jobs later took credit for. Modesty is not his strong suit. On the other hand, Xerox never even tried to sell the Parc, whereas Jobs went through hell getting the Lisa and then the Mac to market. That's genius enough. I don't begrudge him his fame or money. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Brief public demos have been repeated 4 times in 8 months, I think. That is a small number. Anyone would invest in this based on those demos would be insane, in my opinion. I am glad we agree on at least some aspect of this. On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pretty much the total destruction of all confidence I have in LENR. If so many competent people in the field were cheated that easily by Rossi, I can expect much worse from everyone, even in the sense of self deception. Some questions: How many competent people in the field are convinced by Rossi? How many stand to be cheated in any sense? It is not primarily the people competent in this field that stand to be cheated if Rossi's device is a fraud or self deception. There are plenty of people with a lot of money who are scientifically clueless. These are the kind of people that can be suckered in by scientifically inadequate or even misleading demos. As far as I know, you can count them on one hand. A lot of people are paying close attention. Many, including me, think that the weight of evidence is in favor of the claims, based on previous Ni- H claims and so on. You of all people here must know that *belief* based on minimal evidence is one thing, scientific evidence is another. That is an entirely different thing. There is abundant evidence that LENR is real, and that scientific study of it is warranted. There is no reliable published scientific evidence I know of that demonstrates LENR is commercially viable at this point, and that goes for Rossi's device especially. In fact there are various red flags with regard to both Rossi and his claims. I am sure we all look forward to the production of a 1 MW reactor. If that does not happen then it will be very difficult to obtain investors or political support from legislatures to fund badly needed research. *Everyone* stands to lose from that. There could even be unnecessary resource wars and famine because of that. Some people from outside the field say they are convinced, such as Levi, and EK. They have actually performed tests themselves so they can judge the issue better than most people, and they have more reason to be convinced. If I had observed the 18-hour test in person, I would probably be 100% convinced. (I would also have reported it in much more detail than Levi has done, but that's another story.) [snip] - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: If Rossi turns out to be a fraud, or hugely mistaken for some reason, the skeptics here will deserve no credit for predicting this. Getting a little defensive, are we, Jed? No, but I am sick of people who play it safe by predicting failure where failure is likely. I am sick of people who criticize Rossi for his personality and for lying instead of looking at the technical issues. It is too easy to point out his personality faults and thereby evade serious consideration of the claims. Besides, I don't think he regards them as faults, and I doubt anyone is fit to throw the first stone. Rossi appears to be happy with his life. His wife loves him. Who are we to judge his way of talking? Who cares if he constantly contradicts himself or says things that appear to flagrant nonsense, such as the claim that Defkalion never tested a reactor? So what if his hobby is writing strange messages on his blog? What difference does any of that make?!? Learn to ignore that stuff, and concentrate on independent observations by Levi or EK. All too often in the history of science and technology, people have ignored important breakthroughs because of personality issues. Because the person who made the discovery was too bold, or too bashful, irritable, irrational, prone to telling fibs, or from wrong social class. Harrison, who invented the chronometer, is a classic example. If people in high places and academic hacks had not been sidetracked by his personality for a generation, and if they had looked at the technical claims instead of the person, thousands of lives and millions of dollars would have been saved. If Rossi is right, everyone will say his habit of spouting off and his carelessness are merely the eccentricity of genus. All will be forgiven. I don't think it is the eccentricity of genius, because I know many stupid people who act this way. It is mostly harmless because you can usually tell when he is saying something that makes no sense. Just as you can tell with Steve Jobs. Rossi has done more good than harm. If he is right about this, he will have done a billion times more good than harm, so why make a big deal about his personality? - Jed
[Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
The 3rd video refers to Levi shutting of the power to the E-Cat and steam production continuing for 15 minutes. This could easily be explained by thermal inertia. IE the metal and hydrogen of the E-Cat will still be at a high temperature when power is shut off therefore boiling will continue at the previous rate. Since the E-Cat water is at 100C already and the E-Cat is well insulated I'd expect this E-cat thermal mass heat to decay exponentially (approx.) toward 100C (according to conduction and convection laws) with a characteristic time constant. All the tranferred heat should go into making steam. If we estimate a few kg for mass of reactor and nickel (with some more for hydrogen; does anyone remember the hydrogen pressure and amount?) and a heat capacity ~1J/gK then a few kJ per degree could be stored (over a MJ for several hundred degrees above 100C). - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Brief public demos have been repeated 4 times in 8 months, I think. That is a small number. Anyone would invest in this based on those demos would be insane, in my opinion. I am glad we agree on at least some aspect of this. On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pretty much the total destruction of all confidence I have in LENR. If so many competent people in the field were cheated that easily by Rossi, I can expect much worse from everyone, even in the sense of self deception. Some questions: How many competent people in the field are convinced by Rossi? How many stand to be cheated in any sense? It is not primarily the people competent in this field that stand to be cheated if Rossi's device is a fraud or self deception. There are plenty of people with a lot of money who are scientifically clueless. These are the kind of people that can be suckered in by scientifically inadequate or even misleading demos. As far as I know, you can count them on one hand. A lot of people are paying close attention. Many, including me, think that the weight of evidence is in favor of the claims, based on previous Ni-H claims and so on. You of all people here must know that *belief* based on minimal evidence is one thing, scientific evidence is another. That is an entirely different thing. There is abundant evidence that LENR is real, and that scientific study of it is warranted. There is no reliable published scientific evidence I know of that demonstrates LENR is commercially viable at this point, and that goes for Rossi's device especially. In fact there are various red flags with regard to both Rossi and his claims. I am sure we all look forward to the production of a 1 MW reactor. If that does not happen then it will be very difficult to obtain investors or political support from legislatures to fund badly needed research. *Everyone* stands to lose from that. There could even be unnecessary resource wars and famine because of that. Some people from outside the field say they are convinced, such as Levi, and EK. They have actually performed tests themselves so they can judge the issue better than most people, and they have more reason to be convinced. If I had observed the 18-hour test in person, I would probably be 100% convinced. (I would also have reported it in much more detail than Levi has done, but that's another story.) [snip] - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
So, you believe the issue is settled by the use of flow calorimetry (hopefully you mean without phase change). - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect Joe Catania wrote: I'm suggesting what I believe many others have. What should be eliminated is complications like anything flowing, anything shanging phase, heat leakage. Phase changes are a problem, although ice calorimetry has been around for a long time. The only kind of calorimetry that happens without heat leakage is bomb calorimetry, which can only be done for brief reactions or it explodes (hence the name). If we have a well characterized vessel (i.e. we know heat conduction properties well we can use it to contain the reaction. Then we might be able to charcterize heat flow from it better. This might also be done by solding the vessel in a vacuum and measuring the IR spectrum to characterize radiation. I do not see how this would be any better than flow calorimetry, which is what Defkalion uses, and what Levi did in the 18-hour test. For a kilowatt-scale reaction I think that is the best method. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
Horace Heffner wrote: It is not primarily the people competent in this field that stand to be cheated if Rossi's device is a fraud or self deception. There are plenty of people with a lot of money who are scientifically clueless. These are the kind of people that can be suckered in by scientifically inadequate or even misleading demos. Unless you know of some specific people who may have been suckered in by Rossi's demos, I do not think you should worry about this. I know lots of people with money who would like to invest in Rossi's discovery. They do not appear to be in any danger of being scammed by him. As I have often said, he would make the world's worst confidence-man because he inspires no confidence. Most investors I have spoken have a terrible impression of him because of his demos, his fake PdD and his other quirks. His blog in particular seems to be the worst marketing ploy in the history of commerce. If he succeeds in convincing people this is real, it will be in spite of the demonstrations and his blog, not because of them. I think it is only likely to happen if Defkalion is telling the truth, and if they release test results from the Min. of Energy or someplace like that. I think he writes the blog as a hobby, as a way to relax, and as a way to get good ideas from other people. It probably does him a world of good. It causes no harm, and there is no reason why he should stop. People opposed to Rossi have said the blog may be clever viral marketing, or part of a scheme to defraud people, or an effort to make him look mainstream by the title Journal of Nuclear Physics. Such claims are ludicrous. It is the extreme opposite of good marketing or an effort to appear mainstream! If Rossi deliberately set out to make himself look like a disreputable, eccentric, over-unity energy claimant, he could not give a more convincing impression of that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: People such as Edison, Jobs, Whitman and Rossi are not always lying when they say things that are obviously false
Mattia Rizzi wrote: Jed, what is your academic background? Japanese language and literature. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
Jed, how many words wasted ! Just recall how Rossi reacted, time ago, when you proposed to make a test in Bologna using your own tools and what he said when you asked him to visit his Florida plant ! Didn't any alarm bell ring ? I'm sure you are, in his opinion, one of the very very very whatever but you'll have to watch any demo with your hands tied back and a dutch tape strip over your mouth. Did you already get the invitation for to the one megawatt gala party with the 4th July like steam show ? I whish you, at least, having a fine and fresh choice of snacks and apetizers :) 2011/8/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Horace Heffner wrote: It is not primarily the people competent in this field that stand to be cheated if Rossi's device is a fraud or self deception. There are plenty of people with a lot of money who are scientifically clueless. These are the kind of people that can be suckered in by scientifically inadequate or even misleading demos. Unless you know of some specific people who may have been suckered in by Rossi's demos, I do not think you should worry about this. I know lots of people with money who would like to invest in Rossi's discovery. They do not appear to be in any danger of being scammed by him. As I have often said, he would make the world's worst confidence-man because he inspires no confidence. Most investors I have spoken have a terrible impression of him because of his demos, his fake PdD and his other quirks. His blog in particular seems to be the worst marketing ploy in the history of commerce. If he succeeds in convincing people this is real, it will be in spite of the demonstrations and his blog, not because of them. I think it is only likely to happen if Defkalion is telling the truth, and if they release test results from the Min. of Energy or someplace like that. I think he writes the blog as a hobby, as a way to relax, and as a way to get good ideas from other people. It probably does him a world of good. It causes no harm, and there is no reason why he should stop. People opposed to Rossi have said the blog may be clever viral marketing, or part of a scheme to defraud people, or an effort to make him look mainstream by the title Journal of Nuclear Physics. Such claims are ludicrous. It is the extreme opposite of good marketing or an effort to appear mainstream! If Rossi deliberately set out to make himself look like a disreputable, eccentric, over-unity energy claimant, he could not give a more convincing impression of that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: ** The 3rd video refers to Levi shutting of the power to the E-Cat and steam production continuing for 15 minutes. This could easily be explained by thermal inertia. IE the metal and hydrogen of the E-Cat will still be at a high temperature when power is shut off therefore boiling will continue at the previous rate. Since the E-Cat water is at 100C already and the E-Cat is well insulated I'd expect this E-cat thermal mass heat to decay exponentially (approx.) toward 100C (according to conduction and convection laws) with a characteristic time constant. Don't you mean it would rapidly cool below 100°C? Not toward but below. It can't get any hotter than 100°C, or it would already when the power is turned on. I think thermal inertia (total heat capacity; heat released from metal above 100°C) cannot explain continued boiling. Metals such as the steel and nickel catalyst have specific heat about 10 times lower than water. There is only a tiny bit of hydrogen gas; much less than 1 g with negligible thermal mass. So nearly all the thermal mass is in the water. Since the steam production continued, they must have left the pump turned on, and new water flowing in. Based on this, I predict that without anomalous heat the boiling would stop within a minute and the temperature would begin falling rapidly. As I said, even if there was some metal or nickel powder much hotter than 100°C the thermal mass of the hot metal is much lower than the water. I base this partly on tests I have done lately with pots of boiling water with approximately as much mass as a large eCat, I used a large, heavy pot with metal that was much hotter than boiling; it continued to boil for several seconds after the gas flame was turned off. After the first minute the temperate began falling several degrees per minute. In 15 minutes it would far below boiling, especially if the water continues to flow through. I think I uploaded a photo of the pot here. It has some small holes in the lid, convenient for the thermocouples. The steam escapes from them. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Re: People such as Edison, Jobs, Whitman and Rossi are not always lying when they say things that are obviously false
Dear Jed, As a professional scientist I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for you continued efforts to present a balanced perspective on cold fusion. Since the January announcement at the University of Bologna sparked my interest in the topic, your library of CF literature has been an extremely useful resource for me. I value your point of view and in my estimation you have the mind of a true scientist regardless of your formal training. I am almost positive that there are thousands of interested professionals following this issue who would echo my opinion if not for the stigma associated with the subject under discussion. Thanks again for your efforts. Mattia Rizzi wrote: Jed, what is your academic background? Japanese language and literature. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
Susan Gipp wrote: Jed, how many words wasted ! Just recall how Rossi reacted, time ago, when you proposed to make a test in Bologna using your own tools and what he said when you asked him to visit his Florida plant ! Didn't any alarm bell ring ? Yes, as I have said again and again, if we are going to judge this by Rossi's behavior, alarm bells will ring, klaxons will sound, flashing red lights will blind us, and we will not believe it. That is why I suggest you ignore Rossi, and his behavior. Concentrate instead on the reports and observations made by Levi, EK and Lewan, and the claims made by Defkalion when the Minister of Energy was in the audience. Unless you suppose that Rossi has some magical ability to change the laws of thermodynamics or make calorimetry and flow meters stop working in Greece when he is in Italy, you need not worry about him. His flamboyant personality will not deceive a flow meter or seduce a thermometer. Science is not about personality, and not about personal credibility. If Rossi were the only person making these claims, we would be forced to consider his personality as a factor, but unless you suppose Levi and these others are secretly in cahoots with him, or unless you think he has come up with some fantastic undetectable method of fooling them, you can rule out his personality. I see no evidence they are conspiring. I have not seen anyone propose a viable method of faking the experiment. Alan Fletcher went to a lot of trouble compiling a list of ways to make a fake test. There was not one method on his list which Levi or even I would not spot in two minutes. There is not the slightest chance any of those methods would work. None of them was as difficult to catch as an actual experimental error is, including the errors I myself have made. Until someone comes up with a plausible method I think we can put aside that hypothesis. Besides, the hypothesis is not falsifiable until you propose a specific method, so it is not scientifically valid. It is conceivable that Defkalion is faking it. They have not published a report or test data as far as I know. I would say they have a lot more credibility than Rossi does, based on the people attending the press conference, but it is dangerous to judge an scientific claim by outward appearances or a list of impressive friends. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: People such as Edison, Jobs, Whitman and Rossi are not always lying when they say things that are obviously false
On Aug 25, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Finlay MacNab wrote: Dear Jed, As a professional scientist I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for you continued efforts to present a balanced perspective on cold fusion. Since the January announcement at the University of Bologna sparked my interest in the topic, your library of CF literature has been an extremely useful resource for me. I value your point of view and in my estimation you have the mind of a true scientist regardless of your formal training. I am almost positive that there are thousands of interested professionals following this issue who would echo my opinion if not for the stigma associated with the subject under discussion. Thanks again for your efforts. I agree with this in many regards. Jed has a robust knowledge of logic and the history and philosophy of science. Jed has made many contributions to the LENR field, including his book: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf his editing and archiving the papers in lenr-canr.org, and translation, editing and contributions to books and papers by Mizuno and various other scientists. Jed is a great advocate for the LENR field and goodness knows the field is in need of advocacy. Like any good advocate though, his approach in various debates has not been what would normally be called balanced. I think that is all well and good, and it is important to have energetic dialog on the important issues. All of us who have personally invested much in the field owe Jed much thanks for the decades of continuous good work and advocacy. Thanks Jed! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Yes I honestly mean toward 100C. If the metal is below 100C to start we never get boiling so of course its above 100C (by alot) and will cool to 100C which is the temp of boiling water. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3 Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: The 3rd video refers to Levi shutting of the power to the E-Cat and steam production continuing for 15 minutes. This could easily be explained by thermal inertia. IE the metal and hydrogen of the E-Cat will still be at a high temperature when power is shut off therefore boiling will continue at the previous rate. Since the E-Cat water is at 100C already and the E-Cat is well insulated I'd expect this E-cat thermal mass heat to decay exponentially (approx.) toward 100C (according to conduction and convection laws) with a characteristic time constant. Don't you mean it would rapidly cool below 100°C? Not toward but below. It can't get any hotter than 100°C, or it would already when the power is turned on. I think thermal inertia (total heat capacity; heat released from metal above 100°C) cannot explain continued boiling. Metals such as the steel and nickel catalyst have specific heat about 10 times lower than water. There is only a tiny bit of hydrogen gas; much less than 1 g with negligible thermal mass. So nearly all the thermal mass is in the water. Since the steam production continued, they must have left the pump turned on, and new water flowing in. Based on this, I predict that without anomalous heat the boiling would stop within a minute and the temperature would begin falling rapidly. As I said, even if there was some metal or nickel powder much hotter than 100°C the thermal mass of the hot metal is much lower than the water. I base this partly on tests I have done lately with pots of boiling water with approximately as much mass as a large eCat, I used a large, heavy pot with metal that was much hotter than boiling; it continued to boil for several seconds after the gas flame was turned off. After the first minute the temperate began falling several degrees per minute. In 15 minutes it would far below boiling, especially if the water continues to flow through. I think I uploaded a photo of the pot here. It has some small holes in the lid, convenient for the thermocouples. The steam escapes from them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Joe Catania wrote: Yes I honestly mean toward 100C. If the metal is below 100C to start we never get boiling so of course its above 100C (by alot) and will cool to 100C which is the temp of boiling water. I still don't follow what you have in mind. Take the metal at the bottom of a pot on the stove. It is much hotter than 100°C because it is over the gas flame. You turn off the flame. The metal does not get any hotter. Boiling continues for perhaps a minute. But the temperature of the metal and the water cannot rise. If it was not driven above 100°C while the gas was burning, it cannot get any hotter than that after the flame goes off. If we assume there is no anomalous heat in the eCat, the only source of heat left is the joule heaters inside and surrounding the cell. It is conventional, like a gas flame. The heat does not transfer from the metal to the water any faster when the heater power is turned off. As soon as these heaters are turned off, everything in the cell must begin cooling down. A high temperature in a well insulated cell might be sustained for a while. Perhaps longer than with my stainless steel pot. But it cannot get any hotter than it was with power input. Also, boiling removes so much heat, so rapidly, that a few moments after you turn off an electric or gas heater the boiling will stop. Continuing for 15 minutes is out of the question. You would have to have a gigantic mass of hot metal to maintain boiling and release that much heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: People such as Edison, Jobs, Whitman and Rossi are not always lying when they say things that are obviously false
Finlay MacNab wrote: Since the January announcement at the University of Bologna sparked my interest in the topic, your library of CF literature has been an extremely useful resource for me. I value your point of view and in my estimation you have the mind of a true scientist regardless of your formal training. I appreciate the comment. However I did not write all those papers. I did edit a bunch of them. While doing so I learned that many distinguished professors cannot spell, and most of them are very late handing in assignments. Like a year late, in some cases. I wish I had known that when I was a student. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: People such as Edison, Jobs, Whitman and Rossi are not always lying when they say things that are obviously false
I meant to say: I did not write all those papers, so the real credit goes to the authors. The researchers have done a terrific job with practically no resources. With funding the size of sparrow's tears, as they say in Japanese. People often say there has been no progress in cold fusion. I say that if you knew how difficult it was, and how much work is represented in each paper, you would be amazed at how much progress has been made. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
On Aug 24, 2011, at 11:02 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Horace wrote: «Sparging steam into a bucket, though far better that other steam methods applied to date on Rossi's devices, and publicly disclosed, has numerous serious drawbacks, which have already been discussed.» And where they are discussed and by whom? My apologies. I should have provided some references. I consider it rude when sites are referenced and no URL provided. Here is one place where we discussed this: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg50611.html Begin quote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I would note that steam sparging can have large errors due to steam escaping, due to variability in measuring the temperature decline curve, due to variations in the calorimetry constant with temperature, and due to imperfect stirring techniques. See my reference in one of the above posts for an actual application where I applied thermal decline curve measurement and estimated a complete energy balance. Ultimately, the best method involves simultaneous dual calorimetry techniques which establish *total energy balances*, like that used by Earthech International: http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/ICCF14_MOAC.pdf and which in the past has been provided free of charge. Earthtech also has excellent equipment for measuring total electrical energy in. The Rossi devices can be treated like black boxes, with no knowledge of any trade secrets or internals required. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - end quote. My reference to practical problems with an actual application of isoperibolic calorimetry I had in 1997 was documented starting on page 9 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BlueAEH.pdf which shows some basic amateur calorimetry, including use of a post experiment temperature decline curve to estimate heat loss thorough the container walls, a technique which might be useful applied to a barrel calorimeter, though it is obviously best to insulate the barrel. It was noted in the above study that use of dewar flask provided far less exciting results. This is an indication of the general weakness of the technique. It was also noted that there were changing values of the W/(deg. C) calorimeter constant with temperature for the cell, and that this could mean more mechanisms affect heat loss at higher temperatures, e.g. evaporation and IR radiation are more significant. Obtaining a brief decay curve at high temperatures is not adequate for analysis. Good stirring and mixing is also essential for obtaining a mean temperature of the water during a run. Just sparging steam into a bucket is a very inaccurate method. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
On Aug 25, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: «LENR is another avenue. It's not just about Rossi. If the Rossi thing doesn't happen, then maybe something else will. Rossi has brought a lot of attention to the field. Any researchers who have a legitimate claim are going to benefit from this.» –Michael A. Nelson, Nasa I hope this is true. However, I expect NASA will be lucky to afford office supplies when congress gets done with them. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
No, the metal is certainly 100C (I think alot greater). With no power added it should cool according to laws of conduction and convection. Yes, after the power is cut the metal does not get hotter, it cools- toward 100C. As heat is transferred from metal to 100C water the water will boil creating steam. It will do this for as long as the metal is cooling (relative to 100C). This should gnot be compared to an uninsulated pot since there is conduction convection radiation acting in such an experiment while the E-Cat is well insulated and would not have the same time constant as a pot on a stove. As for an experiment I just turned up my electric stove (the small burner) to High until there was a dull red glow. As of 20 minutes after I turned the power off it was still able to produce steam when a drop of water was dropped on it. You should not underestimate cooling times. Kilns can take days to cool. The question is what is the time constant for an E-Cat and is the flow turned off when he does the test or not. Remember there is only 2g a sec of steam being created when the water is flowing. You should be able to see that the power off test could well produce steam for 15 minutes with the thermal mass of the E-Cat. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3 Joe Catania wrote: Yes I honestly mean toward 100C. If the metal is below 100C to start we never get boiling so of course its above 100C (by alot) and will cool to 100C which is the temp of boiling water. I still don't follow what you have in mind. Take the metal at the bottom of a pot on the stove. It is much hotter than 100°C because it is over the gas flame. You turn off the flame. The metal does not get any hotter. Boiling continues for perhaps a minute. But the temperature of the metal and the water cannot rise. If it was not driven above 100°C while the gas was burning, it cannot get any hotter than that after the flame goes off. If we assume there is no anomalous heat in the eCat, the only source of heat left is the joule heaters inside and surrounding the cell. It is conventional, like a gas flame. The heat does not transfer from the metal to the water any faster when the heater power is turned off. As soon as these heaters are turned off, everything in the cell must begin cooling down. A high temperature in a well insulated cell might be sustained for a while. Perhaps longer than with my stainless steel pot. But it cannot get any hotter than it was with power input. Also, boiling removes so much heat, so rapidly, that a few moments after you turn off an electric or gas heater the boiling will stop. Continuing for 15 minutes is out of the question. You would have to have a gigantic mass of hot metal to maintain boiling and release that much heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: The day after Rossi
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, if the enrgy catalyzer will be proved as a hoax (or Rossi diseapper from the public scenes [even with moneys]) then you will close the LENR-CANR website? Does the web site frighten you? Is so, I understand, in which event, I would recommend that you remove it from your bookmarks list. Warmest regards, T
[Vo]:Fwd: The YouTube version of your interview is finished
I appreciate the surprise help from Scott Jorden and Specturm Radio. -Original Message- From: Scott Jordan To: Frank Znidarsic fznidar...@aol.com Sent: Thu, Aug 25, 2011 12:11 pm Subject: The YouTube version of your interview is finished Hey Frank I have been so behind lately, I finally managed to finish the YouTube version of your interview. Enjoy and link it anywhere you like J Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwrpWhq6ruU Part 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPHTylasBpc Scott Listen to Spectrum Radio Network every Tuesday @ 7:55 Pm Pacific 10:55 Pm Eastern with Scott Jordan Tom Theofanous. Check out our YouTube Page Join us on Facebook and Facebook Info
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Look at Kim Kardashian who has made $35 million just by being famous, with no apparent assets other than her ass. Jed, Might I suggest that you look a bit higher? T
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
On 8/25/2011 5:36 PM, Joe Catania wrote: No, the metal is certainly 100C (I think alot greater). Electric heaters such as the ones in the eCat have an upper limit in temperature. It is much lower than a stove nichrome heating element, which goes up to about 1200°C. As for an experiment I just turned up my electric stove (the small burner) to High until there was a dull red glow. As of 20 minutes after I turned the power off it was still able to produce steam when a drop of water was dropped on it. I can see how that would be with drop of water (a fraction of 1 ml) but I believe this event was with the large eCat used in the first tests, with a flow rate of ~300 ml/m. That's 4.5 kg of water vaporized in 15 m, which takes a tremendous amount of heat. That's ~45,000 more water than your drop of water on the hot nichrome. I think the eCat that went on with heat after death was the big one, used in the first test. I believe that is the machine they used in December and January. I don't recall the weight of it, but the video shows two people lifting it up and putting it on a weight scale with no difficulty. It is mostly an empty pipe . . . around 10 kg? Assuming the power was anything close to the January 14 demo of 12 kW, you cannot even deliver that much electricity to the machine in the first place. It would burn up the wire. And even if you could, you can't store 4 kWh of heat (14,400 kJ) in 10 kg of metal. The specific heat of carbon steel is 0.49 kJ/kg K, so if there is 10 kg this would raise the temperature by 2,939 deg K. http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/units-converter/energy/c/ http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-metals-d_152.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Dull red heat is only 500C. You are not being convincing about the E-Cat heaer which it seems you know nothing about. Also the heater would seem to be irrelevat if you believe theres actually an anomalous contribution. The flow rate through a particular E-Cat is irrelevant. Take the Krivit video, 2g/sec. With the flow turned off it should still be vaporizing 2g/s (until it cools). The point to my demonstration was not comparison w/ E-Cat. If my stove were well insulated there's no doubt that it would be able to make steam for days if not weeks. You need to see that there's a time constant involved. Radiation conduction convection w/ the outside is not occuring w/ the E-Cat except for the samll 2g/s cooling asociated w/ steam making. That the rate of production drops in the 15 minutes is a given. One would not expect the production rate to instantaneously stop as soon as the power was shut off. It would produce steam for some time after. Thus the term thermal inertia. 15 minutes is not inordinate. Only ~ 1000J/sec for ~1000 sec (a generous estimate of Levi's observation), or 1MJ. In a couple kgs of metal this is easily supplied by a 500K temperature difference. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 6:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3 On 8/25/2011 5:36 PM, Joe Catania wrote: No, the metal is certainly 100C (I think alot greater). Electric heaters such as the ones in the eCat have an upper limit in temperature. It is much lower than a stove nichrome heating element, which goes up to about 1200°C. As for an experiment I just turned up my electric stove (the small burner) to High until there was a dull red glow. As of 20 minutes after I turned the power off it was still able to produce steam when a drop of water was dropped on it. I can see how that would be with drop of water (a fraction of 1 ml) but I believe this event was with the large eCat used in the first tests, with a flow rate of ~300 ml/m. That's 4.5 kg of water vaporized in 15 m, which takes a tremendous amount of heat. That's ~45,000 more water than your drop of water on the hot nichrome. I think the eCat that went on with heat after death was the big one, used in the first test. I believe that is the machine they used in December and January. I don't recall the weight of it, but the video shows two people lifting it up and putting it on a weight scale with no difficulty. It is mostly an empty pipe . . . around 10 kg? Assuming the power was anything close to the January 14 demo of 12 kW, you cannot even deliver that much electricity to the machine in the first place. It would burn up the wire. And even if you could, you can't store 4 kWh of heat (14,400 kJ) in 10 kg of metal. The specific heat of carbon steel is 0.49 kJ/kg K, so if there is 10 kg this would raise the temperature by 2,939 deg K. http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/units-converter/energy/c/ http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-metals-d_152.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Oops. 3 kWh in 15 minutes, not 4. 10,800 kJ. Assuming the eCat weighs 10 kg and it is mostly carbon steel the temperature goes up 2,200 K, not 2,930 K. I guess it has to go up this much starting at 100°C, in order to cool down to 100°C after releasing 3 kW. That's 373 K + 2,200 K which is 2,573 K, or 2,300°C which is far above the melting point of carbon steel (1,540°C). You can't possibly heat up anything that much with ordinary resistance heaters. Even if the flow rate was much slower, and the heat was 3 kW (the limit to what an ordinary wire can deliver) and the thing weighs 30 kg (about as much as two professors can easily lift), this is still far out of the question. Reasons: 3 kWh / 4 = 0.75 kWh = 2700 kJ. Divide by 30*0.49 and that's 184 K plus 373 K which is 557 K = 284°C. 1. It would have to store up heat before the 15 minute heat-after-death incident. How could it do this, while vaporizing the water flowing through? 2. The entire mass of metal would have to get 284°C, and the part with the electric heater a lot hotter than this. Someone would notice. That is assuming it is perfectly insulated and there is no heat lost to the surroundings from the machine, which is impossible. It would have to a lot hotter, actually. I think the insulation would burn. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
No, its not out of the question at all. Since we don't know the flow rate of water (whether its flowing or not) and since it isn't particularly relevant I neglect it. Levi isn't saying it produced steam at a certain rate- just it produced steam. Therefore my order of mag is as close as anyone should care to come and we needn't discuss it further. Telling me its got to exceed a certain level is silly when you can't describe the level. Your point 1) is well taken. And you calc shows only a temperature of 557K? Sounds good. The electric heater of course gets hotter than this (or at least as hot). This is not a problem. And yes the thermal mass will have stored the necessary energy. Remember, the reactor is jacketed by water so nothing on the outside of this should exceed 100C. The insulation should be fine. I'm sure Rossi's device has internal temps of this magnitude. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 7:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3 Oops. 3 kWh in 15 minutes, not 4. 10,800 kJ. Assuming the eCat weighs 10 kg and it is mostly carbon steel the temperature goes up 2,200 K, not 2,930 K. I guess it has to go up this much starting at 100°C, in order to cool down to 100°C after releasing 3 kW. That's 373 K + 2,200 K which is 2,573 K, or 2,300°C which is far above the melting point of carbon steel (1,540°C). You can't possibly heat up anything that much with ordinary resistance heaters. Even if the flow rate was much slower, and the heat was 3 kW (the limit to what an ordinary wire can deliver) and the thing weighs 30 kg (about as much as two professors can easily lift), this is still far out of the question. Reasons: 3 kWh / 4 = 0.75 kWh = 2700 kJ. Divide by 30*0.49 and that's 184 K plus 373 K which is 557 K = 284°C. 1. It would have to store up heat before the 15 minute heat-after-death incident. How could it do this, while vaporizing the water flowing through? 2. The entire mass of metal would have to get 284°C, and the part with the electric heater a lot hotter than this. Someone would notice. That is assuming it is perfectly insulated and there is no heat lost to the surroundings from the machine, which is impossible. It would have to a lot hotter, actually. I think the insulation would burn. - Jed
