Re: [Vo]:Re: can Ethan's hidden double power wires explain regular exponential temperature rises and falls every 6 minutes for 5 days in Rossi HT2: Ethan: Rich Murray 2013.05.23

[Axil Axil]

I see heat transfer as in a super-fluid, that is almost instansious.


*I am confident the there is a global condensation of polariton states in a
Ni/H reactor. This general condition of Bose-Einstein condensation means
that the micro-powder and perhaps even the hydrogen envelope is a
superfluid that conducts heat with little or no resistance.*

* *

*A superfluid conducts heat better than copper, a 1000 times better, which
is yet an excellent conductor in its own right. The reason is that thanks
to superfluidity, a perfect liquid can easily move from hot zones to cold
zones, enabling a thermal conduction by convection, a phenomenon much more
efficient than the usual gradual heat diffusion. *

* *

*When you put a saucepan of water on a hotplate, the bottom is hotter than
the free surface. Bubbles appear in the bottom, get bigger, get loose and
spread over the water: the water is boiling. *

* *

*However, in a superfluid, the great thermal conduction requires a very
homogeneous temperature everywhere. In the absence of zones hotter than
others, transformation from liquid to vapor can only happen at the free
surface where a superfluid evaporates: there are no bubbles. A superfluid
vaporizes without boiling.   *

* *

*What concerns many theorists of the Ni/H reactor is how heat produced by a
few grams of nickel powder can be transmitted to the walls of the reactor.*

* *

*The general state of superfluidity keeps the temperature uniform
throughout the hydrogen envelop. The walls of the reactor are the same
temperature as the micro-powder because of a general state of Bose-Einstein
condensation made possible by the polariton.*

* *

*Do you see any indication of this superfluid in the data from the test?*


On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Rich Murray  wrote:

> can Ethan's hidden double power wires explain almost linear temperature
> rises and falls every 6 minutes for 5 days in Rossi HT2: Ethan: Rich Murray
> 2013.05.23
>
> http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2013/05/can-ethans-hidden-double-power-wires.html
>
>
>
> http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2013/05/rossi-e-cat-ht-shows-excess-heat-from-h.html
>
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/
>
> comment #103  2013.05.23 Thursday noon PST
>
> Ethan, I appreciate your spirited critique, especially the simple hidden
> double wire scam -- which if power was actually supplied at high voltages,
> could be very small in diameter.
>
> I wonder if this can explain the remarkably constant temperature rises and
> falls with almost linear curves shown for runs of up to 5 days?
>
> within the fellowship of service,  Rich Murray
> rmforall at gmail.com
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf
>
> page 25 bottom:
>
> Remarks on the test
>
> An interesting aspect of the E-Cat HT2 is certainly its capacity to
> operate in self-sustaining mode.
>
> The values of temperature and production of energy which were obtained are
> the result of averages not merely gained through data capture performed at
> different times;
> they are also relevant to the resistor coils’ ON/OFF cycle itself.
>
> By plotting the average temperature vs time for a few minutes of test
> (Plot 3) one can clearly see how it varies between a maximum and a minimum
> value with a fixed periodicity.
>
> Plot 3. Average surface temperature trend of the E-Cat HT2 over several
> minutes of operation.
>
> Note the heating and cooling trends of the device, which appear to be
> different from the exponential characteristics of generic resistor.
>
> Looking at Plot 3, the first feature one notices is the appearance taken
> by the curve in both the heating and cooling phases of the device.
>
> If we compare these in detail with the standard curves of a generic
> resistor (Plot 4 and Plot 5), we see that the former differ from the latter
> in that they are not of the exponential type.
>
> Plot 4. Comparing the typical heating curve of a generic resistor (left,
> [Ref. 9]) to the one relevant to one of the E-Cat HT2’s ON states.
>
> Finally, the complete ON/OFF cycle of the E-Cat HT2, as seen in Plot 3,
> may be compared with the typical heating-cooling cycle of a resistor, as
> displayed in Plot 6.
>
> Plot 6. Heating and cooling cycle of a generic resistor [Ref. 9].
> The trend is described by exponential type equations.
>
> What appears obvious here is that the priming mechanism pertaining to some
> sort of reaction inside the device speeds up the rise in temperature, and
> keeps the temperatures higher during the cooling phase.
>
> Another very interesting behavior is brought out by synchronically
> comparing another two curves:
> power produced over time by the E-Cat HT2, and power consumed during the
> same time.
>
> An example of this may be seen in Plot 7, which refers to about three
> hours of test.
> The resistor coils ON/OFF cycle is plotted in red, while the
> power-emission trend of the device appears in blue.
>
> Plot 8. Detail

[Vo]:Re: can Ethan's hidden double power wires explain regular exponential temperature rises and falls every 6 minutes for 5 days in Rossi HT2: Ethan: Rich Murray 2013.05.23

[Rich Murray]

can Ethan's hidden double power wires explain almost linear temperature
rises and falls every 6 minutes for 5 days in Rossi HT2: Ethan: Rich Murray
2013.05.23
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2013/05/can-ethans-hidden-double-power-wires.html


http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2013/05/rossi-e-cat-ht-shows-excess-heat-from-h.html

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/

comment #103  2013.05.23 Thursday noon PST

Ethan, I appreciate your spirited critique, especially the simple hidden
double wire scam -- which if power was actually supplied at high voltages,
could be very small in diameter.

I wonder if this can explain the remarkably constant temperature rises and
falls with almost linear curves shown for runs of up to 5 days?

within the fellowship of service,  Rich Murray
rmforall at gmail.com


http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf

page 25 bottom:

Remarks on the test

An interesting aspect of the E-Cat HT2 is certainly its capacity to operate
in self-sustaining mode.

The values of temperature and production of energy which were obtained are
the result of averages not merely gained through data capture performed at
different times;
they are also relevant to the resistor coils’ ON/OFF cycle itself.

By plotting the average temperature vs time for a few minutes of test (Plot
3) one can clearly see how it varies between a maximum and a minimum value
with a fixed periodicity.

Plot 3. Average surface temperature trend of the E-Cat HT2 over several
minutes of operation.

Note the heating and cooling trends of the device, which appear to be
different from the exponential characteristics of generic resistor.

Looking at Plot 3, the first feature one notices is the appearance taken by
the curve in both the heating and cooling phases of the device.

If we compare these in detail with the standard curves of a generic
resistor (Plot 4 and Plot 5), we see that the former differ from the latter
in that they are not of the exponential type.

Plot 4. Comparing the typical heating curve of a generic resistor (left,
[Ref. 9]) to the one relevant to one of the E-Cat HT2’s ON states.

Finally, the complete ON/OFF cycle of the E-Cat HT2, as seen in Plot 3, may
be compared with the typical heating-cooling cycle of a resistor, as
displayed in Plot 6.

Plot 6. Heating and cooling cycle of a generic resistor [Ref. 9].
The trend is described by exponential type equations.

What appears obvious here is that the priming mechanism pertaining to some
sort of reaction inside the device speeds up the rise in temperature, and
keeps the temperatures higher during the cooling phase.

Another very interesting behavior is brought out by synchronically
comparing another two curves:
power produced over time by the E-Cat HT2, and power consumed during the
same time.

An example of this may be seen in Plot 7, which refers to about three hours
of test.
The resistor coils ON/OFF cycle is plotted in red, while the power-emission
trend of the device appears in blue.

Plot 8. Detail taken from Plot 7, reproducing the first two periods of the
cycle.

The three time intervals in which each period may be divided are labeled by
Roman numerals.

Further food for thought may be found by analyzing the trend of the ratio
between energy produced and energy consumed by the E-Cat HT2, as referred
to the same time interval dealt with in Plot 7.

The blue curve in Plot 9 is the result of the analysis, and is reproduced
here together with the red curve of power consumption normalized to 1.

Basically, for every second taken into account, the corresponding value of
the blue curve is calculated as the ratio between the sum of the power per
second emitted in all the previous seconds, and the sum of the power per
second consumed in all the previous seconds.

Plot 9. The blue curve is the result of the ratio between energy produced
and consumed by the E-Cat HT2, with reference to the same time instants
dealt with in Plot 7.

The red curve represents the ON/OFF trend of the resistor coils normalized
to 1.

All the above trends are remarkable, and warrant further in-depth inquiry.


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Rich Murray  wrote:

> can Ethan's hidden double power wires explain regular exponential
> temperature rises and falls every 6 minutes for 5 days in Rossi HT2: Ethan:
> Rich Murray 2013.05.23
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Tester's Bios

[pagnucco]

Joshua,

Essen's paper suggests a novel way to use magnetic pinching and electron
screening to effect conventional D+D fusion.

Aside from the fact that both he and W-L use the "Darwin Hamiltonian" to
calculate magnetic forces, their approaches are totally different.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Joshua Cude wrote:
>I have not seen any critical remarks from Essen on Rossi, or any evidence
>that he "had it in for cold fusion".
>
>However, in 2006, he published a paper (arXiv:physics/0607138v1
>[physics.plasm-ph] 14 Jul 2006) on a cold fusion related theory, entitled
>"Catalyzing Fusion with Relativistic Electrons", so it seems he has a
>history of some sympathy for the field. There may be some connection here
>to the WL theory.
>
>In fact, it may be that he has an interest in seeing his theory have some
>relevance.

Re: [Vo]:Levi hot-cat paper means squat

[Rich Murray]

Joshua Cude,

As always, I appreciate your incisive, decisive critique of the Rossi team
claims -- making the obvious, obvious...

I noticed just now, in my earlier post today, I was confused -- it is the
exponential rise and fall of temperature (power) that is a hallmark of
ordinary resistors being heated by a constant current being turned on and
off -- whereas the E-Cat curves rise and fall almost linearly, possibly
indicating a concurrent extra production of
anomalous power.

How much thermal inertia do the many resistor coils have, in terms of how
slowly they rise to peak temperature as the input voltage rises quickly,
and how slowly they cool when the input voltage is brought to zero?

The tiny 0.3 mass of Ni powder is very little, compared to the mass of the
stainless steel cylinder and ceramic cylinder that encloses it within the
cage of resistor coils -- so there would be significant thermal inertia --
a design feature that may help produce the almost linear rise and fall of
temperature (power).

I am keenly interested in this angle of the critical appreciation.

Your overall skepticism about all forms of cold fusion is infectious...

within the fellowship of service,  Rich

Re: [Vo]:Gary Wright on the Hot Cat paper

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "David Roberson" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:08:40 PM
> 
> I hope they are not used for that purpose.
> 
> A spice model is an electronic model that handles non linear
> analysis. In order to simulate Rossi's ECAT, you use electrical
> components.
> 
> Dave

Not only non-linear, but transient (ie changing) analysis.

There's a direct correlation between Spice electronic elements and thermal 
elements:


Electrical  Thermal
Voltage Temperature
Charge  Heat
Current Heat Flow
Resistance  Thermal Resistance
Capacitance Specific Heat * volume

I used it to see if the placement of thermocouples in Rossi's "Heat exchanger" 
test would invalidate his results.

http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_spice.php
(I think that was the last version ... I didn't link it to my main  page)

A mesh of resistors models the structure in 2D (you can do it in 3D but that 
wasn't necessary)
The resistors models the conductivity through the mesh
A capacitor at each junction of 4 resistors models the specific heat

You can then see how a temperature impulse propagates through the mesh.

I got a qualitative answer, but I couldn't callibrate it to get a quantitative 
result.

I expect much the same for the hot-cat. 

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis

[Rich Murray]

Jed Rothwell,

"You have to specify a method that is not only undetectable but that allows
far more electricity to be conducted than normal.
This is an ordinary wire.
 It has to conduct enough electricity to heat up a reactor so much that it
melts 3 mm steel and ceramic.
That seems highly improbable to me."

If the supplied heat cannot readily dissipate by radiation, convection, or
conduction, then a moderate fixed energy input can readily melt steel and
ceramics.
Note, ceramics are not good heat conductors.
Using high voltage DC power input allows high energy input with low
currents, and thus small wires, which can be well insulated by thin layers
of plastics and ceramics -- this is simple technology.
We have no data on how much steel and ceramic was melted, or the melting
temperature of the ceramic -- maybe only a small region at a key location
was melted -- the active Ni may have been as little as 0.3 grams.

The hidden wire scenarios, being technically feasible, must be specifically
refuted, if a breakthrough heat production anomaly must be proved.

I noticed just now, in my earlier post today, I was confused -- it is the
exponential rise and fall of temperature (power) that is a hallmark of
ordinary resistors being heated by a constant current being turned on and
off -- whereas the E-Cat curves rise and fall almost linearly, possibly
indicating a concurrent extra production of
anomalous power.

I am keenly interested in this angle of the critical appreciation.

within the fellowship of service,  Rich


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>  Alan Fletcher wrote:
>
> That was me -- and only a couple of things were plugged into the same socket 
> -- the meter and a camera. The laptops were further over on a separate plug.
>
>
>  The same socket in the wall, or the very same plug in that socket? I
> suppose one plug could be secretly wired and the all the others in the
> building not. Rossi would have to worry that they might come in to the lab,
> unplug it from where it is and plug it in somewhere else. I doubt they
> would do that.
>
>  And of course, since the whole building was wired for the power-input fake, 
> just that ONE socket for the controller would have been rigged, set up before 
> the test team arrived. (Certainly for the December test -- they said it was 
> already running.)
>
>
> Perhaps you meant to say the whole building was not wired, just that one
> plug in that one wall socket.
>
> People can go on playing these games of what if, maybe, suppose until the
> cows come home. For example, you might ask why did it worked normally after
> the second run, during the six hour calibration? Perhaps Rossi was present
> when the test ended, and secretly went and turned off the extra
> electricity. Suppose you hear from Essen that Rossi wasn't there when the
> test ended. Oh, well, in that case he had a secret camera and he saw the
> test was over so he turned off the electricity from a remote site.
>
> This sort of thing is a fantasy like one of these cheesy paperback
> thrillers for sale in the drugstore. To believe you have to up a scenario
> that becomes more and more improbable. You have to ignore many commonsense
> reasons why this is not possible. Such as:
>
> Rossi would have to know exactly what kind of power meter they were
> bringing so that he could devise a circuit to fool it. A circuit that would
> work with one power meter would not work with another. I suppose you could
> say that Levi is in cahoots with him. Even if Levi is, Rossi would have to
> hope the others do not bring a different kind of meter in the next round of
> tests.
>
> You have to specify a method that is not only undetectable but that allows
> far more electricity to be conducted than normal. This is an ordinary wire.
> It has to conduct enough electricity to heat up a reactor so much that it
> melts 3 mm steel and ceramic. That seems highly improbable to me. If Rossi
> is capable of doing things like that he is an extraordinary engineer and he
> can make a great deal of money improving the electric power transmission
> network.
>
> This hypothesis is baloney. It is only slightly less preposterous than the
> infrared laser hypothesis. People who call themselves skeptics would never
> believe a crackpot conspiracy theory that depended upon things like this
> thing true, such as tons of thermite packed into the World Trade Center
> buildings.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Gary Wright on the Hot Cat paper

[David Roberson]

I hope they are not used for that purpose.

A spice model is an electronic model that handles non linear analysis.  In 
order to simulate Rossi's ECAT, you use electrical components.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Rich Murray 
To: vortex-l ; Rich Murray 
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 10:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gary Wright on the Hot Cat paper


Alan Fletcher and David Roberson,


What is a spice model?


Do I understand, are these models for faking the Rossi results?


Thanks, Rich 




On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:03 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Alan,
 
It will be interesting to see if your model agrees with mine.  I have had one 
working now for close to a year that demonstrates a COP of 6 when the device is 
at the threshold of instability.  A COP of 3 is much easier to control although 
both must operate within a region which is normally unstable without input 
power modulation.
 
I drive my model with a pulse width modulated source just as Rossi's actual 
device.  I find that his statements about the operation of his ECAT make sense 
according to the behavior of my model.
 
I am using a spice model.
 
Dave



-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 6:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gary Wright on the Hot Cat paper




> From: "Rich Murray" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:38:34 PM
 
> thanks, Peter Gluck -- I notice Gary Wright does not refer to the
> exponential shape of the curves of rise and fall of temperature in
> each 6 minute cycle -- what do your think?

I'm working on the Spice zero'th-order model.  I've got a nonlinear resistor 
model twitching (with a table lookup) --- I just have to plug in the right 
equation.  (And calibrate it).



 

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Rich Murray]

I appreciate the commonsense engineering concepts about the endothermic
character of diffusion of nuclei within a lattice into the NAE.

within the fellowship of service,  Rich


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> We know from direct measurements and studies at the boiling point that the
> Pd-D system has a positive temperature coefficient in this range. This
> behavior is characteristic of the effect because the rate must be
> determined by an endothermic reaction.   The Pd-D system will not be very
> active at very high temperatures because the concentration of D in Pd drops
> rapidly with increased temperature. This means the rate will start to drop
> as temperature is increased above a much lower temperature than is the case
> of Ni.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On May 23, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Edmund Storms  wrote:
>
>
>> Regardless of which theory a person wishes to apply, this description
>> must be acknowledged because it is based on engineering principles, not on
>> a theory of LENR.
>>
>
> I agree, but perhaps this description only applies to Ni-H, not Pd-D.
> Could that be the case?
>
> I have never heard of a Pd-D experiment at such high temperatures. Who
> knows how it might work. I would like to find out.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Gary Wright on the Hot Cat paper

[Rich Murray]

Alan Fletcher and David Roberson,

What is a spice model?

Do I understand, are these models for faking the Rossi results?

Thanks, Rich


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:03 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Alan,
>
> It will be interesting to see if your model agrees with mine.  I have had
> one working now for close to a year that demonstrates a COP of 6 when the
> device is at the threshold of instability.  A COP of 3 is much easier to
> control although both must operate within a region which is normally
> unstable without input power modulation.
>
> I drive my model with a pulse width modulated source just as Rossi's
> actual device.  I find that his statements about the operation of his ECAT
> make sense according to the behavior of my model.
>
> I am using a spice model.
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Alan Fletcher 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 6:47 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gary Wright on the Hot Cat paper
>
>  > From: "Rich Murray" 
> > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:38:34 PM
>
> > thanks, Peter Gluck -- I notice Gary Wright does not refer to the
> > exponential shape of the curves of rise and fall of temperature in
> > each 6 minute cycle -- what do your think?
>
> I'm working on the Spice zero'th-order model.  I've got a nonlinear resistor
> model twitching (with a table lookup) --- I just have to plug in the right
> equation.  (And calibrate it).
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Gary Wright on the Hot Cat paper

[David Roberson]

Alan,

It will be interesting to see if your model agrees with mine.  I have had one 
working now for close to a year that demonstrates a COP of 6 when the device is 
at the threshold of instability.  A COP of 3 is much easier to control although 
both must operate within a region which is normally unstable without input 
power modulation.

I drive my model with a pulse width modulated source just as Rossi's actual 
device.  I find that his statements about the operation of his ECAT make sense 
according to the behavior of my model.

I am using a spice model.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 6:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gary Wright on the Hot Cat paper


> From: "Rich Murray" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:38:34 PM
 
> thanks, Peter Gluck -- I notice Gary Wright does not refer to the
> exponential shape of the curves of rise and fall of temperature in
> each 6 minute cycle -- what do your think?

I'm working on the Spice zero'th-order model.  I've got a nonlinear resistor 
model twitching (with a table lookup) --- I just have to plug in the right 
equation.  (And calibrate it).



 

RE: [Vo]:The steel and ceramic both melted in the first test

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Jed:

Thanks for pointing that out.  In the several times I read it, I did not
catch that statement in the Figure caption.

But the text does not mention it. I'd like to ask them for clarification.

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:The steel and ceramic both melted in the first test

 

Fig. 1-2 caption: "The performance of this device was such that the reactor
was 
destroyed, melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic
layers." 

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Tester's Bios

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Mark Gibbs wrote:
>
>  Essen, Rossi's site notes, was at one time critical of Rossi and the
>> E-Cat. Anyone got any citations?
>>
>
> He published some strong remarks, years ago. I expect you can find them
> easily with Google. He was the president of the Swedish Skeptics Society,
> so it is no surprise he had it in for Rossi, and for cold fusion in general.
>
> I find it almost miraculous that anyone connected with a "Skeptics
> Society" can bring himself to say anything positive about cold fusion.
> Essen is not your typical capital-S Skeptic.



I have not seen any critical remarks from Essen on Rossi, or any evidence
that he "had it in for cold fusion".

However, in 2006, he published a paper (arXiv:physics/0607138v1
[physics.plasm-ph] 14 Jul 2006) on a cold fusion related theory, entitled
"Catalyzing Fusion with Relativistic Electrons", so it seems he has a
history of some sympathy for the field. There may be some connection here
to the WL theory.

In fact, it may be that he has an interest in seeing his theory have some
relevance.

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Edmund Storms]

We know from direct measurements and studies at the boiling point that  
the Pd-D system has a positive temperature coefficient in this range.  
This behavior is characteristic of the effect because the rate must be  
determined by an endothermic reaction.   The Pd-D system will not be  
very active at very high temperatures because the concentration of D  
in Pd drops rapidly with increased temperature. This means the rate  
will start to drop as temperature is increased above a much lower  
temperature than is the case of Ni.


Ed Storms
On May 23, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms  wrote:

Regardless of which theory a person wishes to apply, this  
description must be acknowledged because it is based on engineering  
principles, not on a theory of LENR.


I agree, but perhaps this description only applies to Ni-H, not Pd- 
D. Could that be the case?


I have never heard of a Pd-D experiment at such high temperatures.  
Who knows how it might work. I would like to find out.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Tester's Bios

[Jed Rothwell]

Jed Rothwell  wrote:

I find it almost miraculous that anyone connected with a "Skeptics Society"
> can bring himself to say anything positive about cold fusion. . . .


With all the vile attacks on Essen in the press and on the Internet, I'll
bet he feels differently about the Society and his erstwhile colleagues in
it. I hope he has learned a lesson.

As a rule, anyone who goes out of his way to label himself a skeptic, isn't.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Tester's Bios

[Jed Rothwell]

ChemE Stewart  wrote:

The vet is there because it is an e-cat...


I *thought* of saying that, but I *resisted* the urge.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis

[Harry Veeder]

If you want the Ecat tested in what you consider a trustworthy site,
Rossi will have to trust that his ecat will be returned.

Trust an integral part of life, and since science is done by the living
rather than the deceased, trust is also an integral part of science.

Harry


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>>  The same socket in the wall, or the very same plug in that socket? I
>> suppose one plug could be secretly wired and the all the others in the
>> building not. Rossi would have to worry that they might come in to the lab,
>> unplug it from where it is and plug it in somewhere else. I doubt they
>> would do that.
>>
>>
>
> The requirement for 3-phase input solves that problem. There was probably
> only one available 3-phase line in the room. Simple.
>
>
>
>>
>> People can go on playing these games of what if, maybe, suppose until the
>> cows come home.
>>
>
> Only because Rossi's protocol's allow them. It would be easy to exclude
> this kind of game by making ecats available to skeptics for testing on
> their own premises.
>
>
> The bottom line is not whether or not we can think of ways they may have
> cheated (they could have just made the whole thing up), but the fact that
> cheating is even possible.
>
>
> A properly claimed scientific claim should not require trust -- at least
> not for long. It has to be possible for anyone skilled in the art to check
> the claims. And these can't be checked.
>
>
>
>
>> For example, you might ask why did it worked normally after the second
>> run, during the six hour calibration? Perhaps Rossi was present when the
>> test ended, and secretly went and turned off the extra electricity.
>>
>
> Well, they conveniently used different power configurations for the
> calibration and the live runs, with continuous instead of cycled power. The
> switch between those modes could have involved some deception involving dc
> bias or double wires or something. The input power was calculated based on
> the peak power and the duty cycle.
>
>
>
>> This sort of thing is a fantasy like one of these cheesy paperback
>> thrillers for sale in the drugstore. To believe you have to up a scenario
>> that becomes more and more improbable.
>>
>
> Again, this only happens because the experiment can't be independently
> checked by anyone else. No one wants such a significant claim to depend on
> trust. And as improbable as these scenarios are, to skeptics, they are
> still orders of magnitude more plausible than an explanation involving
> nuclear reactions.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Tester's Bios

[ChemE Stewart]

The vet is there because it is an e-cat...

On Thursday, May 23, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Alan Fletcher  'a...@well.com');>>wrote:
>
>
>> > Publications:
>> >
>> http://www.journalogy.net/Author/53814223/torbjorn-hartman?query=Torbj%u00f6rn%20Hartman
>>
>> Hmmm .. if HE's happy to stand around a running hot-cat then I guess it's
>> safe after all.
>>
>
> Scary stuff!
>
> You can see how a vet. medical degree is helpful. They must irradiate
> animals before they get around to people. The poor things.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Tester's Bios

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan Fletcher  wrote:


> > Publications:
> >
> http://www.journalogy.net/Author/53814223/torbjorn-hartman?query=Torbj%u00f6rn%20Hartman
>
> Hmmm .. if HE's happy to stand around a running hot-cat then I guess it's
> safe after all.
>

Scary stuff!

You can see how a vet. medical degree is helpful. They must irradiate
animals before they get around to people. The poor things.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:What it takes to fake

[Berke Durak]

> 3. The clamp ammeters are incapable of detecting not only DC but also 
> incapable of detecting frequencies above about 60 Hz.

I think you meant 60 kHz.

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Andrew  wrote:
> Some points to ponder, if you run the numbers:
>
> 1. To produce the supposed excess energy generated over 116 hours would
> require about 100 Kg of lithium-based batteries.
>
> 2. To produce the supposed excess power would require a wire feed (and
> return) carrying just a few milliAmps at a few Kilovolts.
>
> 3. The clamp ammeters are incapable of detecting not only DC but also
> incapable of detecting frequencies above about 60 Hz.
>
> Andrew
>

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  wrote:

**
> I for one am going to drop this "esteemed science team" meme.
>

So, you think the Swedish power company consortium sent amateurs? You think
Uppsala U. and the Royal Institute of Technology are two-year colleges?



> There's another one with a nuclear physics qualification who has several
> patents on *coffee machine design*. This does not indicate to me that we
> are dealing here with the cream of the crop.
>

How would you know? I'll bet there is ton of money in a good coffee
machine. Einstein and Szilard patented a refrigerator.

The Svedberg Laboratory does medical research. It makes sense they have a
guy with degrees in vet. medicine and civil engineering.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]

[Andrew]

Oh Lord, we are all sinners :)
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]


  MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:


E.g., the statement that "how could you melt the ceramic with a much higher 
melting point and not the steel cylinder", or that both the ceramic and the 
steel melted... Both of these are wrong.  That was NEVER stated in the report.


  Yes, it was. Figs. 1-2 caption: "The performance of this device was such that 
the reactor was 
  destroyed, melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic 
layers."



. . .  they are almost a sure indication that the person has NOT read the 
original report; they are just parroting what they've read elsewhere.



  I said that first here, and I read the report carefully, several times. Also, 
it helps to do a Ctrl-s search for "ceramic" (which I just did, to find it 
again). I will grant, I often mis-remember things. That's why God gave up 
Google.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]

[Andrew]

I for one am going to drop this "esteemed science team" meme. There's another 
one with a nuclear physics qualification who has several patents on coffee 
machine design. This does not indicate to me that we are dealing here with the 
cream of the crop.

Andrew


- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]


> It does mean vet. Here's a random person from LinkedIn
> 
> Cornelia Wagner, Dr. med. vet.
> Veterinarian, Certified Veterinary Acupucturist at Hawthorne Veterinary 
> Clinic
> 
> She's German also, like Hartman.
> So yes, Hartman's a vet. Perhaps because he's vetting. Woof woof.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: Jed Rothwell
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]
> 
> 
> Mark Gibbs  wrote:
> 
> 
> Which author is a vet? I didn't find any such thing ...
> 
> 
> Maybe this guy? Hartman:
> 
> http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo?id=N96-5170
> 
> Personal merits
> 
> Dr.Med.vet., civ.ing.
> 
> 
> I guess that means Veterinarian Medicine and Civil Engineering. But maybe it 
> means something different in Swedish.
> 
> 
> - Jed 
>

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]

[Jed Rothwell]

Why God gave *us* Google.

Quoting the elderly British woman circa 1955, "If God had meant us to fly,
he would never have given us the railways." My sentiments exactly.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]

[Jed Rothwell]

MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:

E.g., the statement that "how could you melt the ceramic with a much higher
> melting point and not the steel cylinder", or that both the ceramic and the
> steel melted... Both of these are wrong.  That was NEVER stated in the
> report.


Yes, it was. Figs. 1-2 caption: "The performance of this device was such
that the reactor was
destroyed, melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic
layers."



> . . .  they are almost a sure indication that the person has NOT read the
> original report; they are just parroting what they've read elsewhere.
>

I said that first here, and I read the report carefully, several times.
Also, it helps to do a Ctrl-s search for "ceramic" (which I just did, to
find it again). I will grant, I often mis-remember things. That's why God
gave up Google.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]

[Andrew]

It does mean vet. Here's a random person from LinkedIn

Cornelia Wagner, Dr. med. vet.
Veterinarian, Certified Veterinary Acupucturist at Hawthorne Veterinary 
Clinic


She's German also, like Hartman.
So yes, Hartman's a vet. Perhaps because he's vetting. Woof woof.

Andrew


- Original Message - 
From: Jed Rothwell

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]


Mark Gibbs  wrote:


Which author is a vet? I didn't find any such thing ...


Maybe this guy? Hartman:

http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo?id=N96-5170

Personal merits

Dr.Med.vet., civ.ing.


I guess that means Veterinarian Medicine and Civil Engineering. But maybe it 
means something different in Swedish.



- Jed 

[Vo]:The steel and ceramic both melted in the first test

[Jed Rothwell]

Fig. 1-2 caption: "The performance of this device was such that the reactor
was
destroyed, melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic
layers."

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Gibbs  wrote:

Which author is a vet? I didn't find any such thing ...
>

Maybe this guy? Hartman:

http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo?id=N96-5170

Personal merits

Dr.Med.vet., civ.ing.

I guess that means Veterinarian Medicine and Civil Engineering. But maybe
it means something different in Swedish.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  The same socket in the wall, or the very same plug in that socket? I
> suppose one plug could be secretly wired and the all the others in the
> building not. Rossi would have to worry that they might come in to the lab,
> unplug it from where it is and plug it in somewhere else. I doubt they
> would do that.
>
>

The requirement for 3-phase input solves that problem. There was probably
only one available 3-phase line in the room. Simple.



>
> People can go on playing these games of what if, maybe, suppose until the
> cows come home.
>

Only because Rossi's protocol's allow them. It would be easy to exclude
this kind of game by making ecats available to skeptics for testing on
their own premises.


The bottom line is not whether or not we can think of ways they may have
cheated (they could have just made the whole thing up), but the fact that
cheating is even possible.


A properly claimed scientific claim should not require trust -- at least
not for long. It has to be possible for anyone skilled in the art to check
the claims. And these can't be checked.




> For example, you might ask why did it worked normally after the second
> run, during the six hour calibration? Perhaps Rossi was present when the
> test ended, and secretly went and turned off the extra electricity.
>

Well, they conveniently used different power configurations for the
calibration and the live runs, with continuous instead of cycled power. The
switch between those modes could have involved some deception involving dc
bias or double wires or something. The input power was calculated based on
the peak power and the duty cycle.



> This sort of thing is a fantasy like one of these cheesy paperback
> thrillers for sale in the drugstore. To believe you have to up a scenario
> that becomes more and more improbable.
>

Again, this only happens because the experiment can't be independently
checked by anyone else. No one wants such a significant claim to depend on
trust. And as improbable as these scenarios are, to skeptics, they are
still orders of magnitude more plausible than an explanation involving
nuclear reactions.

RE: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Vorts,

"Serves me right for copying verbatim from an article without checking."

Yes, as a general warning to all, I've seen this numerous times in just 4 days, 
where someone states something that is picked up and repeated.  I've seen this 
happen not only in the comment section of various websites discussing the 
issue, but also here of all places.  E.g., the statement that "how could you 
melt the ceramic with a much higher melting point and not the steel cylinder", 
or that both the ceramic and the steel melted... Both of these are wrong.  That 
was NEVER stated in the report.  It only names the steel cylinder containing 
the Ni fuel as having melted, NOT the two outer ceramic cylinders, so be 
careful of restating something unless verified by reading the original report.

And if you're taking the time to participate in some of the comment sections of 
websites, watch out for these erroneous 'requotes', and correct them; they are 
almost a sure indication that the person has NOT read the original report; they 
are just parroting what they've read elsewhere.

-Mark Iverson

-Original Message-
From: Andrew [mailto:andrew...@att.net] 
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]

Serves me right for copying verbatim from an article without checking. 
Apologies. Obviously it was a half-baked hatchet job in that article. I can't 
locate it for now, but I definitely read it, and yes it was Foschi.

Andrew

- Original Message -
From: "Alan Fletcher" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]


>>
>> Which author is the veterinarian? Here are the details I've been able
>> to find:
>>
>> * Evelyn Foschi -- not sure; possibly this:
>> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/evelyn-foschi/5/7b8/645
>
> Associated with http://www.ceixray.com/
>
> They MAKE X-RAY EQUIPMENT, which can be used for (their site typing out a 
> caption)
>
>
> Orthodonty
> Veterinarians <===
> Industrial Control
> Quality Control
> Alimentary (Digestion, I presume)
>
> 

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]

[Andrew]

Serves me right for copying verbatim from an article without checking. 
Apologies. Obviously it was a half-baked hatchet job in that article. I 
can't locate it for now, but I definitely read it, and yes it was Foschi.


Andrew

- Original Message - 
From: "Alan Fletcher" 

To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]




Which author is the veterinarian? Here are the details I've been able
to find:

* Evelyn Foschi -- not sure; possibly this:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/evelyn-foschi/5/7b8/645


Associated with http://www.ceixray.com/

They MAKE X-RAY EQUIPMENT, which can be used for (their site typing out a 
caption)



Orthodonty
Veterinarians <===
Industrial Control
Quality Control
Alimentary (Digestion, I presume)

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]

[Alan Fletcher]

> 
> Which author is the veterinarian? Here are the details I've been able
> to find:
>
> * Evelyn Foschi -- not sure; possibly this:
> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/evelyn-foschi/5/7b8/645

Associated with http://www.ceixray.com/

They MAKE X-RAY EQUIPMENT, which can be used for (their site typing out a 
caption)


Orthodonty
Veterinarians <===
Industrial Control
Quality Control
Alimentary (Digestion, I presume)

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Andrew  wrote:

If I were concerned with my scientific integrity, I would collect together
> all such comments and re-issue that paper. But if I were a veterinarian,
> like one of the authors, it wouldn't be a big concern, because I could
> still make dogs' health better.


Which author is the veterinarian?  Here are the details I've been able to
find:

   - Giuseppe Levi, researcher, nuclear and subnuclear physics, University
   of Bologna,
   http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.htm?UPN=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it
   - Evelyn Foschi -- not sure; possibly this:
   http://www.linkedin.com/pub/evelyn-foschi/5/7b8/645
   - Torbjörn Hartman, senior research engineer at Svedberg Laboratory,
   Uppsala University,
   http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo/?languageId=1&id=N96-5170
   - Bo Höistad, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nuclear
   Physics, Uppsala University,
   http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo/?languageId=1&id=XX1060
   - Roland Pettersson, senior lecturer, Department of Chemistry,
   http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo/?id=XX1360
   - Lars Tegnér, professor of engineering, Uppsala University,
   http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo/?languageId=1&id=N9-1431
   - Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics,
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_Ess%C3%A9n

Perhaps you have in mind Foschi?  What is your source?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]

[Mark Gibbs]

Which author is a vet? I didn't find any such thing ...

[mg]


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Andrew  wrote:

> Rossi has stated that the testers brought their own cables. A poster here
> asserts that they were Rossi's cables. As usual, this issue is not
> addressed by the paper.
>
> If I were concerned with my scientific integrity, I would collect together
> all such comments and re-issue that paper. But if I were a veterinarian,
> like one of the authors, it wouldn't be a big concern, because I could
> still make dogs' health better.
>
> Andrew
>

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Tester's Bios

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Mark Gibbs" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:46:47 PM
> Subject: [Vo]:E-Cat Tester's Bios
 
> Torbjörn Hartman
> Senior Research Engineer
> The Svedberg Laboratory (which specializes in proton therapy and is
> attached to Uppsala University)
> Uppsala, Sweden,
> 
> Publications:
> http://www.journalogy.net/Author/53814223/torbjorn-hartman?query=Torbj%u00f6rn%20Hartman

Hmmm .. if HE's happy to stand around a running hot-cat then I guess it's safe 
after all.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Tester's Bios

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Gibbs wrote:

Essen, Rossi's site notes, was at one time critical of Rossi and the 
E-Cat. Anyone got any citations?


He published some strong remarks, years ago. I expect you can find them 
easily with Google. He was the president of the Swedish Skeptics 
Society, so it is no surprise he had it in for Rossi, and for cold 
fusion in general.


I find it almost miraculous that anyone connected with a "Skeptics 
Society" can bring himself to say anything positive about cold fusion. 
Essen is not your typical capital-S Skeptic.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew wrote:

Rossi has stated that the testers brought their own cables. A poster 
here asserts that they were Rossi's cables. As usual, this issue is 
not addressed by the paper.


Cables? Do you mean electric wires? That brings up a good point.

With a clamp on ammeter there has to be set of wires separated. You 
cannot put the clamp around the entire circuit. The ammeters I have seen 
come with a breakout box or a set of wires, like a short extension cord. 
I suppose they brought this, rather than cutting apart Rossi's wire. 
(That's a really dumb thing to do.) So I guess there is nothing special 
about the wire from the wall socket to the power supply. Rossi is not 
using a gold or silver wire, instead of copper. For what it's worth.



If I were concerned with my scientific integrity, I would collect 
together all such comments and re-issue that paper.

I think they should ignore speculation about infrared lasers and the like.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Gary Wright on the Hot Cat paper

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Rich Murray" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:38:34 PM
 
> thanks, Peter Gluck -- I notice Gary Wright does not refer to the
> exponential shape of the curves of rise and fall of temperature in
> each 6 minute cycle -- what do your think?

I'm working on the Spice zero'th-order model.  I've got a nonlinear resistor 
model twitching (with a table lookup) --- I just have to plug in the right 
equation.  (And calibrate it).

[Vo]:E-Cat Tester's Bios

[Mark Gibbs]

Does anone have any more in-depth bios of the group that tested the E-Cat.
This is what I have so far:

Giuseppe Levi
Assistant Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Bologna University
Bologna, Italy
Bio:
http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.htm?upn=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it&TabControl1=TabCV

Website: http://www.giuseppelevi.it/
Publications: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/47387224/g-leviand
http://www.unibo.it/Faculty/default.htm?TabControl1=TabPubs&upn=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it

Evelyn Foschi "is in the product development department for medical
devices, University of Bologna. Her specialty is X-ray." --
http://andrearossiecat.com/e-cat/members-of-the-3rd-party-report-commission
Publications: No.

Torbjörn Hartman
Senior Research Engineer
The Svedberg Laboratory (which specializes in proton therapy and is
attached to Uppsala University)
Uppsala, Sweden,
Publications:
http://www.journalogy.net/Author/53814223/torbjorn-hartman?query=Torbj%u00f6rn%20Hartman

Bo Höistad
Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nuclear Physics
Uppsala University
Uppsala, Sweden
Publications: http://www.journalogy.net/Author/51661212

Roland Pettersson
Senior Lecturer
Department of Chemistry - BMC, Analytical Chemistry
Uppsala University
Uppsala, Sweden
Publications:
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/56841550/roland-pettersson

Lars Tegnér
Professor Emeritus
Department of Engineering Sciences, Division of Electricity
Uppsala University
Uppsala, Sweden
Publications: Doctoral thesis -
http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?searchId=2&pid=diva2:298914 -
otherwise apparently not published unless he is also P.-E. Tegnér in which
case he's somehow connected to Stockholm University:
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/13416120/p-e-tegner

Hanno Essen
Docent and Lecturer
Department of Mechanics of the KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm, Sweden
Publications:
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/12981049/hanno-essen

Essen, Rossi's site notes, was at one time critical of Rossi and the E-Cat.
Anyone got any citations?

[m]

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]

[Andrew]

Rossi has stated that the testers brought their own cables. A poster here 
asserts that they were Rossi's cables. As usual, this issue is not addressed 
by the paper.


If I were concerned with my scientific integrity, I would collect together 
all such comments and re-issue that paper. But if I were a veterinarian, 
like one of the authors, it wouldn't be a big concern, because I could still 
make dogs' health better.


Andrew 

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Michele Comitini]

Rossi writes on his blog about Arxiv, peer reviewing, why that report is
not going to be published on a magazine [not a journal], but something
derived from it could/will.



May 22nd, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Dear Paolo,
I read the article on Repubblica, is sincere and honest, but contains some
imprecision:

1- the peer reviewing has been done. Read more carefully the report . Arxiv
has anyway a peer reviewing ( a publication must be examined by at least
one of the competent of the art that is well known by the Arxiv commettee:
try to publish a bad article on Arxiv and you will understand that I am
right); secondly, to be published in a cartaceous peer reviewed magazine
takes many months, so the Examiners decided to anticipate the publication
on Arxiv, pending a publication on another peer reviewed magazine. By the
way, the report has been peer reviewed by the list of Professors you find
in the acknowledgements, not to mention the fact that when a paper is
signed by many Professors of international Universities, there is also an
automatic peer reviewing made among the same Authors of the same report. It
is more difficult that 7 Authors make mistakes than 1 Author , isn’t it?
Also: the Report is 30 pages, and is impossible to publish 30 pages in a
normal magazine, therefore by necessity the report will have to be reduced
to be published in a normal magazine: for this reason Arxiv has been chosen
by the examiners for the first publication.

2- the description of the process has been described uncorrectly, but I
understand that for a non expert is difficult to write in few lines an
abstract of 30 pages of report.
In conclusion, the journalist of Repubblica has made honestly and sincerely
the job.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


2013/5/23 Alan Fletcher 

> > From: "Eric Walker" 
> > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:16:55 AM
> > I wrote:
>
> > Lubos Motl does not appear to be drawing a distinction between TeX
> > and LaTeX; he is drawing a distinction between TeX/LaTeX, on one
> > hand, and a simple PDF typed up in a normal word processor, on the
> > other. Presumably the former would be the expected form of
> > submission to a mainstream physics journal. This is one of the
> > details that makes me think there is no intention to submit for
> > publication.
>
> http://www.investorvillage.com/mbthread.asp?mb=476&tid=12816817&showall=1
>
> Posted 5/23/2013  4:00:15 AM by Gustav
> It is not written in Latin so I am afraid isn't legit
>
>
> > Another reason to think they do not intend to submit for publication
> > in a reputable scientific journal -- they cite Wikipedia (ref. 8, at
> > the end).
>
> Lordy, lordy -- it's firgin diagram -- a compilation of generally
> available information, and not really central to the paper.
>
> > Another point worth mentioning -- this paper has followed the
> > approach of the August 7, 2012, paper cited elsewhere very closely
> > [2]. In that paper there was the Ragone diagram, the infrared
> > camera, the radiation measurements by David Bianchini, the
> > Stefan-Boltzmann equation, etc. One gets the distinct impression
> > that the May 2013 paper used the August 2012 paper as a template.
> > This is not a problem in and of itself, but it makes plausible
> > suspicions to the effect that a less than objective observer (Levi)
> > led a possibly flawed effort modeled closely on an earlier one and
> > that the Swedish members of the team might have allowed their names
> > to be added to the paper without doing sufficient due diligence.
>
> We don't know who suggested the radiometric calorimetry method and the use
> of the Ragone plot. Chicken? Egg?
> And even if Levi et al DID follow he previous methodology, is that bad?
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Gary Wright on the Hot Cat paper

[Rich Murray]

thanks, Peter Gluck -- I notice Gary Wright does not refer to the
exponential shape of the curves of rise and fall of  temperature in each 6
minute cycle -- what do your think?

within the fellowship of service,  Rich

can Ethan's hidden double power wires explain regular exponential
temperature rises and falls every 6 minutes for 5 days in Rossi HT2: Ethan:
Rich Murray 2013.05.23
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2013/05/can-ethans-hidden-double-power-wires.html


http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2013/05/rossi-e-cat-ht-shows-excess-heat-from-h.html

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/

comment #103  2013.05.23 Thursday noon PST

Ethan, I appreciate your spirited critique, especially the simple hidden
double wire scam -- which if power was actually supplied at high voltages,
could be very small in diameter.

I wonder if this can explain the remarkably constant temperature rises and
falls with exponential curves shown for runs of up to 5 days?

within the fellowship of service,  Rich Murray
rmforall at gmail.com


http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf

page 25 bottom:

Remarks on the test

An interesting aspect of the E-Cat HT2 is certainly its capacity to operate
in self-sustaining mode.

The values of temperature and production of energy which were obtained are
the result of averages not merely gained through data capture performed at
different times;
they are also relevant to the resistor coils’ ON/OFF cycle itself.

By plotting the average temperature vs time for a few minutes of test (Plot
3) one can clearly see how it varies between a maximum and a minimum value
with a fixed periodicity.

Plot 3. Average surface temperature trend of the E-Cat HT2 over several
minutes of operation.

Note the heating and cooling trends of the device, which appear to be
different from the exponential characteristics of generic resistor.

Looking at Plot 3, the first feature one notices is the appearance taken by
the curve in both the heating and cooling phases of the device.

If we compare these in detail with the standard curves of a generic
resistor (Plot 4 and Plot 5), we see that the former differ from the latter
in that they are not of the exponential type.

Plot 4. Comparing the typical heating curve of a generic resistor (left,
[Ref. 9]) to the one relevant to one of the E-Cat HT2’s ON states.

Finally, the complete ON/OFF cycle of the E-Cat HT2, as seen in Plot 3, may
be compared with the typical heating-cooling cycle of a resistor, as
displayed in Plot 6.

Plot 6. Heating and cooling cycle of a generic resistor [Ref. 9].

The trend is described by exponential type equations.

What appears obvious here is that the priming mechanism pertaining to some
sort of reaction inside the device speeds up the rise in temperature, and
keeps the temperatures higher during the cooling phase.

Another very interesting behavior is brought out by synchronically
comparing another two curves:
power produced over time by the E-Cat HT2, and power consumed during the
same time.

An example of this may be seen in Plot 7, which refers to about three hours
of test.

The resistor coils ON/OFF cycle is plotted in red, while the power-emission
trend of the device appears in blue.

Plot 8. Detail taken from Plot 7, reproducing the first two periods of the
cycle.

The three time intervals in which each period may be divided are labeled by
Roman numerals.

Further food for thought may be found by analyzing the trend of the ratio
between energy produced and energy consumed by the E-Cat HT2, as referred
to the same time interval dealt with in Plot 7.

The blue curve in Plot 9 is the result of the analysis, and is reproduced
here together with the red curve of power consumption normalized to 1.

Basically, for every second taken into account, the corresponding value of
the blue curve is calculated as the ratio between the sum of the power per
second emitted in all the previous seconds, and the sum of the power per
second consumed in all the previous seconds.

Plot 9. The blue curve is the result of the ratio between energy produced
and consumed by the E-Cat HT2, with reference to the same time instants
dealt with in Plot 7.

The red curve represents the ON/OFF trend of the resistor coils normalized
to 1.

All the above trends are remarkable, and warrant further in-depth enquiry.



On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

Does not like it, at least it seems so at fast reading:
>


>
> http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/thoughts-on-the-latest-andrea-rossi-giuseppe-levi-and-hanno-essen-paper/
>
> Peter
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi hotcat paper --- shutrossidown

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

The site isn't loading.
>

It is now back on line.

My goodness! The author, Gary Wright, is an extremist.

Regarding me, Wright says: "Are they [Levi et al.] expecting everyone to
blindly believe everything Rossi has said or done in the past as Jed
Rothwell is desperately trying to get people to do?"

After all the nasty things I have said about Rossi it is a little
surprising Wright thinks I am blindly supportive. If Rossi turns out to be
completely right, I hope that he too will overlook my snide remarks.

It is odd that Wright attacks Levi et al. for making equivocal, guarded
statements:

"This abstract was written after the tests, why does it say 'possible
anomalous heat production'? Doesn’t that conflict with their conclusions?"

Yet elsewhere he attacks them -- and me -- claiming we are unequivocal.
Which is it? Are we too hesitant, or too certain?

Logic is not his strong suit.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi hotcat paper --- shutrossidown+motl

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

> Regarding Ethan #84
>
Axil^2 refers to a letter, here:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/


> There is cutting insight to be drawn from the reactions of the
> professional science cast . . .
>
You mean caste.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Some reasons Rossi has personal credibility

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig  wrote:


> . . . it doesn't surprise me
> that someone with a poor memory can also be an excellent engineer. The
> two traits go together. With me, for instance, it's because I have a
> hard time remembering, that I have become an excellent problem solver.
> When I look at code that I've written, just a few months earlier; it's
> like looking at new code which I've never seen before. I then have to
> reconstruct the solutions to the problems -- again -- from scratch.


That is an interesting observation. I have the same kind of mind. I too see
programs afresh the next day.

That is helpful for jobs that require you to do the same thing over and
over, year after year, such as teaching 5th grade. I imagine you would be
bored to tears doing that if you could not find the same old historylesson
interesting the 10th time around.

I suppose Yul Brynner must have had this quality since he was able to
perform "The King And I" on stage 4,625 (!) times. I guess that is a good
thing.

I think that the ability to forget is essential to many formsof creativity.
There are people who do not forget things. They have prodigious memories
and they can remember details from years or decades ago. If this ability
gave us an evolutionary advantage everyone would have it. Since most of us
tend to forget things I assume that promotes survival in natural
circumstances.

- Jed

[Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis

[Jed Rothwell]

 Alan Fletcher wrote:

That was me -- and only a couple of things were plugged into the same
socket -- the meter and a camera. The laptops were further over on a
separate plug.


 The same socket in the wall, or the very same plug in that socket? I
suppose one plug could be secretly wired and the all the others in the
building not. Rossi would have to worry that they might come in to the lab,
unplug it from where it is and plug it in somewhere else. I doubt they
would do that.

 And of course, since the whole building was wired for the power-input
fake, just that ONE socket for the controller would have been rigged,
set up before the test team arrived. (Certainly for the December test
-- they said it was already running.)


Perhaps you meant to say the whole building was not wired, just that one
plug in that one wall socket.

People can go on playing these games of what if, maybe, suppose until the
cows come home. For example, you might ask why did it worked normally after
the second run, during the six hour calibration? Perhaps Rossi was present
when the test ended, and secretly went and turned off the extra
electricity. Suppose you hear from Essen that Rossi wasn't there when the
test ended. Oh, well, in that case he had a secret camera and he saw the
test was over so he turned off the electricity from a remote site.

This sort of thing is a fantasy like one of these cheesy paperback
thrillers for sale in the drugstore. To believe you have to up a scenario
that becomes more and more improbable. You have to ignore many commonsense
reasons why this is not possible. Such as:

Rossi would have to know exactly what kind of power meter they were
bringing so that he could devise a circuit to fool it. A circuit that would
work with one power meter would not work with another. I suppose you could
say that Levi is in cahoots with him. Even if Levi is, Rossi would have to
hope the others do not bring a different kind of meter in the next round of
tests.

You have to specify a method that is not only undetectable but that allows
far more electricity to be conducted than normal. This is an ordinary wire.
It has to conduct enough electricity to heat up a reactor so much that it
melts 3 mm steel and ceramic. That seems highly improbable to me. If Rossi
is capable of doing things like that he is an extraordinary engineer and he
can make a great deal of money improving the electric power transmission
network.

This hypothesis is baloney. It is only slightly less preposterous than the
infrared laser hypothesis. People who call themselves skeptics would never
believe a crackpot conspiracy theory that depended upon things like this
thing true, such as tons of thermite packed into the World Trade Center
buildings.

- Jed

[Vo]:Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist At the Same Time

[Jack Cole]

http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/DPOWdJL0eqo/story01.htm

Re: [Vo]:Levi hotcat paper --- shutrossidown

[James Bowery]

The site isn't loading.


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> Clearly not impressed.  Annotated paper at :
>
>
> http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/thoughts-on-the-latest-andrea-rossi-giuseppe-levi-and-hanno-essen-paper/
>
> I've only skimmed it. Jed is mentioned.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi hotcat paper --- shutrossidown+motl

[Axil Axil]

Regarding Ethan #84

There is cutting insight to be drawn from the reactions of the professional
science cast as they post about the Rossi test.

I am a stiffed necked sort who rejects arbitrary discipline.  This reaction
has kindled in me a resentment of a kind of authority that spreads the
scent of charred flesh wide across the land.

It seems to me, the professional scientists act like high priests of some
perverse science based religion. They must fiercely protect their
doctrinaire from a growing heresy, a pestilence of the mind, a plague of
skeptics that are marching fast to oppose their holy interests.

How could a mere tinkerer teach them about what they have studied for so
long?
Ethan, their high arch bishop states:

“There are some people who buy into the “science doesn’t know everything”
angle, and think that a tinkerer will show us the way forward. Maybe this
is it, they say, dismissing what would be scientific tests.”

This experiment is a threat to the faith of their followers.


What they fear the most is that they will lose the dossal faith and
sycophant adoration of the faithful of science.


The high arch bishop states again:

“There are others who loved this on hearing it the first time, and that’s
their position on it: they love it, period. No evidence — not even outright
evidence of fraud — will change their minds.”

This blessed ministry fears that they have lost the power of their
sanctified authority. Doctrine is being ignored. How will their students
accept what they say in class tomorrow? Blood must be let. Bodies must be
burnt at the stake of ideological purity.

A clarion call has issued forth far and wide for a holy crusade of the
faithful to cleanse the land of heresy and disbelief.

>From the arch bishop again as he speaks ex cathedra from his pulpit:

“For my own perspective, I think we have a responsibility as scientists to
tell the public what the science is, what good science is, and whether this
is good science or not. (It’s not.) And then, to tell them what good
science would look like, and demand it. Otherwise, it’s not worth listening
to.”


These special men, these chosen few have a sacred obligation to preserve,
protect, and defend the hallowed bastions of their certain truths that this
chosen priesthood has so carefully crafted over long dark centuries of
supreme effort and toil. Their truth can bear no affront; their certainty
can stand no injury from an ignorant rabble as these ill-informed
miscreants chafe under the oppressive weight of their priestly yoke.

Ethan laments in the end:

“I don’t know whether people need Gods or heroes; some do, others don’t.
But we all need the truth.”


Yes, the divine truth that only Ethan can really know.


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Alan Fletcher wrote:
>
>  ps http://phys.org/news/2013-05-**rossi-e-cat-energy-density-**
>> higher.html
>> Nice diagram!  (Gee .. they cropped some stuff off it)
>>
>
> They darn well should have acknowledged you.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan Fletcher wrote:

That was me -- and only a couple of things were plugged into the same socket -- 
the meter and a camera. The laptops were further over on a separate plug.

The same socket in the wall, or the very same plug in that socket? I 
suppose one plug could be secretly wired and the all the others in the 
building not. Rossi would have to worry that they might come in to the 
lab, unplug it from where it is and plug it in somewhere else. I doubt 
they would do that.



And of course, since the whole building was wired for the power-input fake, 
just that ONE socket for the controller would have been rigged, set up before 
the test team arrived. (Certainly for the December test -- they said it was 
already running.)


Perhaps you meant to say the whole building was not wired, just that one 
plug in that one wall socket.


People can go on playing these games of what if, maybe, suppose until 
the cows come home. For example, you might ask why did it worked 
normally after the second run, during the six hour calibration? Perhaps 
Rossi was present when the test ended, and secretly went and turned off 
the extra electricity. Suppose you hear from Essen that Rossi wasn't 
there when the test ended. Oh, well, in that case he had a secret camera 
and he saw the test was over so he turned off the electricity from a 
remote site.


This sort of thing is a fantasy like one of these cheesy paperback 
thrillers for sale in the drugstore. To believe you have to up a 
scenario that becomes more and more improbable. You have to ignore many 
commonsense reasons why this is not possible. Such as:


Rossi would have to know exactly what kind of power meter they were 
bringing so that he could devise a circuit to fool it. A circuit that 
would work with one power meter would not work with another. I suppose 
you could say that Levi is in cahoots with him. Even if Levi is, Rossi 
would have to hope the others do not bring a different kind of meter in 
the next round of tests.


You have to specify a method that is not only undetectable but that 
allows far more electricity to be conducted than normal. This is an 
ordinary wire. It has to conduct enough electricity to heat up a reactor 
so much that it melts 3 mm steel and ceramic, in the first test. I 
understand that the second and third tests could be faked with this 
wire, but the first one seems impossible. If Rossi is capable of doing 
things like that he is an extraordinary engineer and he can make a great 
deal of money improving the electric power transmission network.


I suppose a Skeptic will say the first test was one kind of fake and the 
next two were another. This seems improbable.


I think this hypothesis is baloney. It is only slightly less 
preposterous than the infrared laser hypothesis. People who call 
themselves skeptics would never believe a crackpot conspiracy theory 
that depended upon things like this thing true, such as tons of thermite 
packed into the World Trade Center buildings.


- Jed

[Vo]:Gary Wright on the Hot Cat paper

[Peter Gluck]

Does not like it, at least it seems so at fast reading:
http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/thoughts-on-the-latest-andrea-rossi-giuseppe-levi-and-hanno-essen-paper/

Peter


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Some reasons Rossi has personal credibility

[Craig]

If I could elaborate a little bit more on this: it doesn't surprise me
that someone with a poor memory can also be an excellent engineer. The
two traits go together. With me, for instance, it's because I have a
hard time remembering, that I have become an excellent problem solver.
When I look at code that I've written, just a few months earlier; it's
like looking at new code which I've never seen before. I then have to
reconstruct the solutions to the problems -- again -- from scratch. My
critical thinking, reason, and logic, have to be better than average in
order to compensate for an inability to remember detail. So the weakness
in memory is offset by an increase in the ability to find solutions and
reconstruct that which I've forgotten.

Craig

On 05/23/2013 09:04 AM, Craig wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 11:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>> It is strange how a detailed-oriented engineer sometimes throws
>> discipline aside and blunders ahead like an amateur. I am a big fan of
>> structured programming with meaningful variable names, but I once
>> dashed off a quick and dirty program for Chris Tinsley, which he
>> gleefully pointed out was full of spaghetti code and variables such as
>> "A" and "T1." He got a good laugh out of it.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
> It's not discipline that's thrown asunder. It's memory. I have an
> excellent ability to figure things out. I can design, write, and debug
> complex code; but I have a hard time remembering facts. It actually
> takes time for me to remember something. I have to put my mind to work
> on it, and then the memories start to return. So when someone asks a
> question for which I have a shady memory, I have to spend time trying to
> get the information to them. It then becomes easy to throw back an
> answer before I've ascertained the validity of the answer. This aspect
> of Rossi reminds me a lot -- of me. It takes a bit of effort to be precise.
>
> Craig
>

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Edmund Storms" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54:34 AM
> 
> A great deal of discussion has been generated by the Rossi test. I
> would liker to add my contribution.
> 
 
> Second, he has shown that the effect can be effectively controlled by
> temperature. This means that one rate-controlling part of the process
> is endothermic. I have previously proposed that this part involves
> diffusion of H or D into the NAE.  This suggestion is based on simple
> logic.  The rate of the nuclear reaction is determined by how rapidly
> the reactants can assemble, which would be controlled by diffusion.
> Of  course, once the reactants are assembled, the nucear reaction would
> be very fast and not be subject to control.

I've been wondering for a while about a geometric temperature-dependent 
explanation.

Suppose we have rods of nickel, with cracks on the surface  running along the 
length of the rod.
(The same argument can be applied to spheres, but rods are easier to explain).

The radius of the rod varies linearly with temperature.

With pure nickel there is NO stress around the cracks, so they are unchanged.

But suppose his "catalyst" were a surface treatment, resulting in a LOWER 
coefficient of expansion.

Then there WOULD be stress across the cracks, pulling them apart, which could  
serve either to deepen them, or to elongate them.

The deepening and/or lengthening of the cracks creates a NAE whose size is 
proportional to temperature, so the reaction is multiplied in like proportion.  
When the temperature drops the cracks close up again.

With rods the cracks oriented round the circumference would not expand. With 
spheres all cracks would be expand.

RE: [Vo]:Elforsk endorsement of E-Cat testing

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Apparently they have allocated the following funds to study the technology:

A report published earlier this year by ELFORSK showed that in 2012, 200,000
Swedish Krona (about 23,000 Euros) was budgeted for the study of the E-Cat,
and in each of the following three years 2,000,000 Krona was budgeted for
its study.

Can't read Swedish, but the report is here if someone would care to verify
the numbers:
http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Om%20Elforsk/Filer/ELFORSKs%20FoU-plan%202013%2
0webb.pdf

-Mark Iverson

-Original Message-
From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Elforsk endorsement of E-Cat testing

On 2013-05-23 21:45, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
> Hello group,

A couple more links.

Some more background on the ecat.com website:
http://ecat.com/news/elforsk-publish-news-about-the-ecat-test

> What is Elforsk?
>
> On 17 December 1992 Vattenfall, Svenska Kraftnät (Swedish national grid),
Association of Swedish Electric Utilities’ (Svenska Elverksföreningen) and
Swedish Power Association (Svenska Kraftverksföreningen) agreed to set up
Elforsk – Swedish Electrical Utilities’ R & D Company (Svenska Elföretagens
Forsknings- och Utvecklings- Elforsk – Aktiebolag).

 From E-Cat World, with links to hints to such cooperation during the past
months:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/swedish-rd-company-elforsk-ab-comments-pos
itively-on-e-cat-report/

One could argue that the E-Cat HT report might not have been written under
the best standards of quality for a scientific publication, but if the
Swedish R&D company formed by the association of the local national power
grid and electric utilities is willing to put their name (and
money) on this, then it might be the time to start taking Rossi seriously to
not be caught unprepared.

This is news that might have significant impact on business decisions in the
short to medium term, in my opinion.

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Jed Rothwell]

Edmund Storms  wrote:


> Regardless of which theory a person wishes to apply, this description must
> be acknowledged because it is based on engineering principles, not on a
> theory of LENR.
>

I agree, but perhaps this description only applies to Ni-H, not Pd-D. Could
that be the case?

I have never heard of a Pd-D experiment at such high temperatures. Who
knows how it might work. I would like to find out.

- Jed

[Vo]:What it takes to fake

[Andrew]

Some points to ponder, if you run the numbers:

1. To produce the supposed excess energy generated over 116 hours would 
require about 100 Kg of lithium-based batteries.


2. To produce the supposed excess power would require a wire feed (and 
return) carrying just a few milliAmps at a few Kilovolts.


3. The clamp ammeters are incapable of detecting not only DC but also 
incapable of detecting frequencies above about 60 Hz.


Andrew

Re: [Vo]:Some reasons Rossi has personal credibility

[Craig]

On 05/22/2013 11:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> It is strange how a detailed-oriented engineer sometimes throws
> discipline aside and blunders ahead like an amateur. I am a big fan of
> structured programming with meaningful variable names, but I once
> dashed off a quick and dirty program for Chris Tinsley, which he
> gleefully pointed out was full of spaghetti code and variables such as
> "A" and "T1." He got a good laugh out of it.
>
> - Jed
>

It's not discipline that's thrown asunder. It's memory. I have an
excellent ability to figure things out. I can design, write, and debug
complex code; but I have a hard time remembering facts. It actually
takes time for me to remember something. I have to put my mind to work
on it, and then the memories start to return. So when someone asks a
question for which I have a shady memory, I have to spend time trying to
get the information to them. It then becomes easy to throw back an
answer before I've ascertained the validity of the answer. This aspect
of Rossi reminds me a lot -- of me. It takes a bit of effort to be precise.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Levi hot-cat paper means squat

[Joshua Cude]

Sorry about the duplication of one of the paragraphs in that epistle. It's
a riviso…


I want to emphasize the point about the power density of the nickel. If
there really is only one gram of nickel, then the power density
(power-to-mass ratio) is about 100 times higher than found in nuclear
fission reactors, which limit power density to avoid melting the fuel.


Given that there is very inefficient cooling compared to a nuclear reactor,
and since the melting point of uranium fuel is much higher than nickel, I
wonder if you can get enough nickel into that cylinder to deliver the
necessary power below its melting point. That should be calculable for
someone with the right background.




On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> *A dependent, 2nd party, untestable claim means squat*
>
>
> This paper is yet another unrefereed, sub-par cold fusion claim to add to
> the pile of unrefereed sub-par cold fusion claims. Only this is is an
> unrefereed, sub-par cold fusion claim made with a black box that no one
> else has access to. Pitiful.
>
>
> I'm amazed that this has caused such excitement among true believers. It
> will be amusing if this all comes crashing down like the wet steam claims
> did. The 2011 demos got Rothwell and Storms and others to say Rossi was the
> be-all and end-all in cold fusion, but a year or so later, Rothwell was
> back to citing McKubre's 1994 paper as the best evidence for cold fusion.
> It all just shows the incredible bias among true believers for any kind of
> a scrap of good news that they can rally around to feed their euphoria a
> little longer. And Storms' support for the 2011 demos served to show him as
> gullible as the rest of the true believers.
>
>
> What has changed with this new report? Before we had Levi, Essen,
> Kullander, and Focardi writing unrefereed reports published on-line
> claiming that Rossi has demonstrated a source of energy beyond chemical,
> and Pettersson giving his verbal support, and Levi reporting a secret
> experiment that verified the ecat without steam.  Now we have Levi, Essen,
> Pettersson, and a couple of new Swedish professors (Uppsala's shame!)
> writing an unrefereed report of a secret experiment published on-line
> claiming that Rossi has demonstrated a source of energy beyond chemical.
>
>
> Some believers argue that this is what skeptics asked for, but it's not
> even close. In early April, I said that it was not at all unlikely that
> allegedly independent 3rd parties would claim clear evidence of LENR, but
> then wrote:
>
>
> "
>
> *Allegedly independent 3rd parties could simply be some little-known
> academics. But we already know from the BLP history that statements from
> such academics mean squat. Especially if the academics appear to be
> recruited […][E]ven if the statement is definite, a scientific
> revolution will need more to go on than trust in a few recruited academics.
> Individual academics, […] with unremarkable reputations, have essentially
> nothing to lose by being wrong. In fact, if Rossi pays consulting fees,
> they may have a lot to gain. [It's not, as some have said, P&F again,
> because no one is paying attention, and so no one will notice if they get
> it wrong.]*
>
> **
>
> *Skeptics have been asking for independent validation, but reports about
> a black box from a few (or even a dozen) individuals is not that.*
>
> **
>
> *For exactly the same reason, it is unlikely a prominent journal will
> publish claims of a new phenomenon that can't be tested by its audience.
> So, if a report is published, it will be in a small-time journal, and no
> matter how detailed, if it's a black-box test, it still relies on trust.*
>
> **
>
> *So what is needed? The best would be if the details of the reactor were
> disclosed so others could test the claims, but of course that won't happen.
> Next best would be if the reactor were made available on request, so it
> could be tested by anyone. Also won't happen. Third best would be a public
> demonstration involving some experts who are on the record as being
> skeptical, and which is really transparent. With an energy density a
> million times higher than dynamite, this should not be difficult. A
> completely and obviously isolated device that produced unequivocal heat
> many times its total weight in chemical fuel would do the trick (and should
> be trivial).*
>
> **
>
> *Failing those, the only sort of validation that would have an impact is
> one in which the independence is truly transparent, and the consequences of
> being wrong are significant. This would be the case, for example, if Rossi
> had an open invitation to major national laboratories to run the test, and
> one or more openly and voluntarily sent a team for the purpose. Any labs
> that offer to perform the test and are turned down would be in a position
> to report that publicly. National labs or even university endorsed teams
> have a lot more to lose than a few academics acting on their own. Th

Re: [Vo]:Some reasons Rossi has personal credibility

[Jed Rothwell]

MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:


> Did he discuss his visit in detail with Rossi so that they both were on
> the same page as to what to expect?
>

As I wrote here at the time, before Rossi invited Krivit, he invited me. He
described what he would do, in detail. I said I would bring my own
instruments and make my own measurements to confirm the results. He said
that would not be acceptable, so I turned down the invitation.

Krivit either did not make measurements or he did not report them. He did
not report some of the essential parameters. As I recall he did not report
the flow rate. There is no way he could confirm the results without this.

Krivit did get the impression it was not working, apparently because the
reactor outlet was plugged up. This was why it was not working when NASA
visited soon after. When the people at NASA confirmed that the reactor
outlet was plugged up, Rossi became very upset, and he threw them out. He
is a strange fellow.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Lynn  wrote:


> As for the other; are you seriously disputing that 2kW of AC electrical
> power could be sent through those wires to the Ecat?
>

2 kW is not a problem, although modern US safety standards limit power to
1.5 kW. What they cannot do is send enough power to cause 3 mm steel and
ceramic to melt. I do not know how many kilowatts that is but I'm sure it's
more than two.

- Jed

[Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Edmund Storms]

A great deal of discussion has been generated by the Rossi test. I  
would liker to add my contribution.


Rossi has demonstrated two very important behaviors of the effect.

First, the effect can be initiated and sustained for a significant  
time at temperatures above 800° C.  This means the NAE once formed is  
very stable.  This degree of stability severely limits the theories  
that can be applied and eliminates most of the ones presently being  
explored.


Second, he has shown that the effect can be effectively controlled by  
temperature. This means that one rate-controlling part of the process  
is endothermic. I have previously proposed that this part involves  
diffusion of H or D into the NAE.  This suggestion is based on simple  
logic.  The rate of the nuclear reaction is determined by how rapidly  
the reactants can assemble, which would be controlled by diffusion. Of  
course, once the reactants are assembled, the nucear reaction would be  
very fast and not be subject to control.


To effectively solve the control problem, Rossi has maximized thermal  
contact between the NAE in the Ni and a source of temperature, which  
is the heaters. He has to apply power because the NAE in the NI has to  
cool rapidly once the LENR process tries to grow in intensity by  
getting hotter as a result of its own heat production. In other words,  
the effect involves two rate controlling processes, one is exothermic  
and the other is endothermic.  Control requires a balance be created  
between the two. This balance uses diffusion as the control mechanism.


He heats the material to a temperature that allows the heat producing  
rate in the NAE to start to self-heat. He then turns off the external  
heat source and the resulting temperature, which allows the diffusion  
rate to drop enough to starve the fusion process of reactant and cool.  
This process is repeated.  A waveform of applied power is chosen to  
make this process as efficient as possible.


Regardless of which theory a person wishes to apply, this description  
must be acknowledged because it is based on engineering principles,  
not on a theory of LENR.


Ed Storms

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[James Bowery]

I found the major error:

The peak wavelength is in the infrared -- as it is with the sun -- and I
intuitively thought that the fact that much of the surface was bright red
thru yellow meant my picking dull red (700nm) was "conservative".  This
then fed via Wien's law proportionately into the fourth power of Stefan
Boltzmann's law to produce the 2MW.

This arose because I simply neglected to go to the next page after page 2
-- where Figure 3 shows the temperature as 793C or 1066K.

Recalculating from the substitution for Th:

q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)
q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(1291304958736-Tc^4)  ; subst(1066, Th)
q=3084.152246988637*pi ;  subst(289, Tc)
q=9689W


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:58 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> I can't resist:
>
> What power level is required to get that device to barely enter the
> visible wavelengths (700nm), again, assuming no losses other than black
> body?
>
> again using http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation_t.php at
> 700nm:
>
> blackbody temperature (T) = 4139.6692857143   kelvin
>
> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)
> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(2.9367203218388994*10^14-Tc^4)  ;
> subst(4139.6692857143, Th)
> q=705199.0585641474*pi
> q=2.2154481E6W
>
> Yeah, Rossi had a really high frequency power supply pumping even 1/10th
> of that into the E-Cat HT.
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:40 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> One final erratum (hopefully):  In the November run when the device
>> overheated to visible wavelengths, the input power was 1kW (p2), not 360W.
>>  Therefore:
>>
>> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)
>> 1000=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)  ; subst(1000, 360)
>>
>> Th=(59549289748750/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4) ; solve(Th)
>> Th=611.17587 Kelvin
>> Th=338.026 Celsius
>>
>> using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php
>>
>> peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 4.741300568689E-6 meter
>>
>> Still deep into the infrared.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> Erratum: I also left out the substitution step for room temperature:
>>>
>>> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ;  subst(289)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
 Erratum:  Strike the "So, what..."


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery wrote:

> q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
> q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A)
> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(5.6703e-8,
> s)
> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055, r)
>  q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
> Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
>  Th=483.6006 Kelvin
> Th=210.451 Celsius
>
> using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php
>
> peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter
>
> or 6 micrometers
>
> That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no
> convective losses).
>
> That is way into the infrared.  The excursions into the visible
> wavelength occurred with 360W.
>
>
>
> So, what
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one
>>> of the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:
>>>
>>> That the power input could not conceivably have produced the
>>> radiation wavelengths observed.
>>>
>>
>> You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more
>> detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be
>> helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.
>>
>> You might also address the fact that the first device melted.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi hot-cat paper means squat

[James Bowery]

rofl


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> *A dependent, 2nd party, untestable claim means squat*
>
>
> This paper is yet another unrefereed, sub-par cold fusion claim to add to
> the pile of unrefereed sub-par cold fusion claims. Only this is is an
> unrefereed, sub-par cold fusion claim made with a black box that no one
> else has access to. Pitiful.
>
>
> I'm amazed that this has caused such excitement among true believers. It
> will be amusing if this all comes crashing down like the wet steam claims
> did. The 2011 demos got Rothwell and Storms and others to say Rossi was the
> be-all and end-all in cold fusion, but a year or so later, Rothwell was
> back to citing McKubre's 1994 paper as the best evidence for cold fusion.
> It all just shows the incredible bias among true believers for any kind of
> a scrap of good news that they can rally around to feed their euphoria a
> little longer. And Storms' support for the 2011 demos served to show him as
> gullible as the rest of the true believers.
>
>
> What has changed with this new report? Before we had Levi, Essen,
> Kullander, and Focardi writing unrefereed reports published on-line
> claiming that Rossi has demonstrated a source of energy beyond chemical,
> and Pettersson giving his verbal support, and Levi reporting a secret
> experiment that verified the ecat without steam.  Now we have Levi, Essen,
> Pettersson, and a couple of new Swedish professors (Uppsala's shame!)
> writing an unrefereed report of a secret experiment published on-line
> claiming that Rossi has demonstrated a source of energy beyond chemical.
>
>
> Some believers argue that this is what skeptics asked for, but it's not
> even close. In early April, I said that it was not at all unlikely that
> allegedly independent 3rd parties would claim clear evidence of LENR, but
> then wrote:
>
>
> "
>
> *Allegedly independent 3rd parties could simply be some little-known
> academics. But we already know from the BLP history that statements from
> such academics mean squat. Especially if the academics appear to be
> recruited […][E]ven if the statement is definite, a scientific
> revolution will need more to go on than trust in a few recruited academics.
> Individual academics, […] with unremarkable reputations, have essentially
> nothing to lose by being wrong. In fact, if Rossi pays consulting fees,
> they may have a lot to gain. [It's not, as some have said, P&F again,
> because no one is paying attention, and so no one will notice if they get
> it wrong.]*
>
> **
>
> *Skeptics have been asking for independent validation, but reports about
> a black box from a few (or even a dozen) individuals is not that.*
>
> **
>
> *For exactly the same reason, it is unlikely a prominent journal will
> publish claims of a new phenomenon that can't be tested by its audience.
> So, if a report is published, it will be in a small-time journal, and no
> matter how detailed, if it's a black-box test, it still relies on trust.*
>
> **
>
> *So what is needed? The best would be if the details of the reactor were
> disclosed so others could test the claims, but of course that won't happen.
> Next best would be if the reactor were made available on request, so it
> could be tested by anyone. Also won't happen. Third best would be a public
> demonstration involving some experts who are on the record as being
> skeptical, and which is really transparent. With an energy density a
> million times higher than dynamite, this should not be difficult. A
> completely and obviously isolated device that produced unequivocal heat
> many times its total weight in chemical fuel would do the trick (and should
> be trivial).*
>
> **
>
> *Failing those, the only sort of validation that would have an impact is
> one in which the independence is truly transparent, and the consequences of
> being wrong are significant. This would be the case, for example, if Rossi
> had an open invitation to major national laboratories to run the test, and
> one or more openly and voluntarily sent a team for the purpose. Any labs
> that offer to perform the test and are turned down would be in a position
> to report that publicly. National labs or even university endorsed teams
> have a lot more to lose than a few academics acting on their own. This is
> less than perfect, but it would certainly draw a lot of attention. But I'm
> pretty sure that's not gonna happen either. Alas.*
>
> **
>
> *Whatever happens in the next month or two, it will almost certainly have
> no significant impact on mainstream science, and at most a ripple on the
> mainstream media. A year from now, LENR and the ecat will be in exactly the
> same place they are now, which is exactly where they were a year ago, and
> where they were 2 years ago. There will be an eager internet following
> expecting something big real soon now, but the rest of the world will
> remain more or less oblivious.*
>
> "
>
>
> So, what has happened falls short of every crite

[Vo]:Test

[Jed Rothwell]

Not working . . .

Re: [Vo]:Levi hotcat paper --- shutrossidown

[Robert Lynn]

Gary Wright, Rossi's Florida factory claim nemesis


On 23 May 2013 18:56, Roarty, Francis X  wrote:

> Someone actually paid for the url "shutdownrossi.com ? Altruistic rarely
> extends to paid attacks... I would ignore any information on a site with
> this sort of url.
> Fran
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:38 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Levi hotcat paper --- shutrossidown
>
> Clearly not impressed.  Annotated paper at :
>
>
> http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/thoughts-on-the-latest-andrea-rossi-giuseppe-levi-and-hanno-essen-paper/
>
> I've only skimmed it. Jed is mentioned.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Elforsk endorsement of E-Cat testing

[Jed Rothwell]

ELFORSK is the Swedish Energy Association. Some sources say it is Danish,
but the web site is in Swedish. See:

http://www.elforsk.se/

By the way, someone should please ping me and let me know if this message
got through. Vortex has been rejecting me again. 

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> Another reason to think they do not intend to submit for publication
> > in a reputable scientific journal -- they cite Wikipedia (ref. 8, at
> > the end).
>
> Lordy, lordy -- it's firgin diagram -- a compilation of generally
> available information, and not really central to the paper.
>

It would have been easy to miss my point, since I expressed it a little
intemperately.  My point was about communication and not the substance of
the paper.  As far as I know, Levi and the others measured exactly what
they said they measured, and Rossi demonstrated a device with COP 2.6+.

I was talking about effective communication.  Who are the authors trying to
persuade?  Their intended audience will shape the approach they will want
to take. Four possibilities come to mind:

   1. The general public.
   2. Cold fusion people.
   3. Open-minded scientists without much exposure to cold fusion.
   4. Close-minded scientists (Lubos Motl, etc.).

If you're going for (1), you probably also want to aim for (3).  If you're
going for (3), you should try to meet those folks half-way.  That means
dotting your i's and crossing your t's.  I would not be surprised if there
is a body of sociological literature on why the process for preparing a
paper for submission is so complex and fraught with possible errors.  For
example, there is the typesetting that I gather the authors are intended to
do themselves, at least in part.  And any professional scientist is
expected to have (at some point in the submission process) an impeccable
command of grammar and punctuation and so on.  I think these things provide
a signal to others about whether the authors have been thorough.  Did they
miss something important, e.g., did they forget to look at the power
supply?  They missed some simple things, like fixing up the funky formula,
and they didn't bother to ask for help, so perhaps they missed the power
supply.  This kind of thing is a distraction.  Distractions are bad.

People hold different productions to different standards.  You ignore for
the most part whether your younger niece is hitting a few wrong notes in a
piano performance during a holiday and enjoy the show.  You hold a concert
pianist to a different standard, and those kinds of mistakes look very bad.
 People in category (3) are expecting something along the lines of the
latter and will be distracted by something aiming for the standards of the
former.  Effective communication involves minimizing distraction.  People
in (3), above, are no doubt looking for journal articles.  If we want to
persuade them that there might be something to cold fusion, we should try
to meet them half-way.  Even if journals have a policy of avoiding cold
fusion articles, people should still aim for the same level of quality.

By the way, I suspect that some (certainly not many) of the close minded
folks are actually secretly open-minded people and are just playing devils
advocate to get some good counterarguments.

We don't know who suggested the radiometric calorimetry method and the use
> of the Ragone plot. Chicken? Egg?
> And even if Levi et al DID follow he previous methodology, is that bad?
>

No, it's not that bad.  It's just something that can be expected to trigger
an alarm bell in a casual observer (need not be a debunker), since no
mention is made of the earlier paper as far as I can tell.  It gives the
impression of a naive adoption of the earlier methods.  Anything that
looks like naivety can be expected to impair effective communication.  I
get that we here don't have those kinds of filters and are looking at other
details, but we should not expect open minded scientists to discard them
all at once.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Hanno Essén's comments on the latest E-Cat third party report

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2013-05-23 17:09, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Hello group,


(this email appeared on the list six hours later than when I sent it)

Re: [Vo]:Elforsk endorsement of E-Cat testing

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2013-05-23 21:45, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Hello group,


A couple more links.

Some more background on the ecat.com website:
http://ecat.com/news/elforsk-publish-news-about-the-ecat-test


What is Elforsk?

On 17 December 1992 Vattenfall, Svenska Kraftnät (Swedish national grid), 
Association of Swedish Electric Utilities’ (Svenska Elverksföreningen) and Swedish 
Power Association (Svenska Kraftverksföreningen) agreed to set up Elforsk – Swedish 
Electrical Utilities’ R & D Company (Svenska Elföretagens Forsknings- och 
Utvecklings- Elforsk – Aktiebolag).


From E-Cat World, with links to hints to such cooperation during the 
past months:


http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/swedish-rd-company-elforsk-ab-comments-positively-on-e-cat-report/

One could argue that the E-Cat HT report might not have been written 
under the best standards of quality for a scientific publication, but if 
the Swedish R&D company formed by the association of the local national 
power grid and electric utilities is willing to put their name (and 
money) on this, then it might be the time to start taking Rossi 
seriously to not be caught unprepared.


This is news that might have significant impact on business decisions in 
the short to medium term, in my opinion.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Duncan Cumming  wrote:


> Power measurement was done using a wide band 3 phase power meter, a
> notoriously difficult instrument to use. A slight slackening of one of the
> current sensing clamps . . .
>

This would be detected during the calibration with a resistor, and again
during the calibration with a blank cell. (In an interview Essen said they
calibrated with a resistor.)



> . . .  a particle of grit (or Scotch tape) on the clamp face, or
> mis-threading of the cables through the clamps would give lower than actual
> power readings.
>

This would be caught by the resister test, I believe.



> A controller could easily be designed to bamboozle such a power meter . . .
>

Rossi could only do this if he knew in advance which meter they were
bringing.



> In short, the power measurement could have been fiddled very easily.
>

I doubt it. If it were that easy for a power meter to fail, electrical and
electronic equipment all over Atlanta would be burning up every day. My
point is that "fiddling" with equipment is functionally the same as making
a mistake, only people make mistakes far more often they deliberately make
fake results. People make mistakes every day all day long and yet our
electrical equipment survives.

- Jed

[Vo]:Elforsk endorsement of E-Cat testings

[Akira Shirakawa]

(this is my second attempt to send this message. I think the server is 
having problems with some emails)


Hello group,

Have a look here (Google translated):

http://www.elforsk.se/Aktuellt/Svenska-forskare-har-testat-Rossis-energikatalysator--E-cat/


Swedish researchers have tested Rossi energy catalyst - E-cat

Researchers from Uppsala University and KTH Stockholm has conducted 
measurements of the produced heat energy from a device called the E-cat. It is 
known as an energy catalyst invented by the Italian scientist Andrea Rossi.

The measurements show that the catalyst produces significantly more energy than 
can be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. The results are very 
remarkable. What lies behind the extraordinary heat production can not be 
explained today. There has been speculation over whether there can be any form 
of nuclear transformation. However, this is highly questionable. To learn more 
about what is going on you have to learn what is happening with the fuel and 
the waste it produces. The measurements have been funded by such Elforsk.


!!

Cheers,
S.A.

[Vo]:Levi hot-cat paper means squat

[Joshua Cude]

*A dependent, 2nd party, untestable claim means squat*


This paper is yet another unrefereed, sub-par cold fusion claim to add to
the pile of unrefereed sub-par cold fusion claims. Only this is is an
unrefereed, sub-par cold fusion claim made with a black box that no one
else has access to. Pitiful.


I'm amazed that this has caused such excitement among true believers. It
will be amusing if this all comes crashing down like the wet steam claims
did. The 2011 demos got Rothwell and Storms and others to say Rossi was the
be-all and end-all in cold fusion, but a year or so later, Rothwell was
back to citing McKubre's 1994 paper as the best evidence for cold fusion.
It all just shows the incredible bias among true believers for any kind of
a scrap of good news that they can rally around to feed their euphoria a
little longer. And Storms' support for the 2011 demos served to show him as
gullible as the rest of the true believers.


What has changed with this new report? Before we had Levi, Essen,
Kullander, and Focardi writing unrefereed reports published on-line
claiming that Rossi has demonstrated a source of energy beyond chemical,
and Pettersson giving his verbal support, and Levi reporting a secret
experiment that verified the ecat without steam.  Now we have Levi, Essen,
Pettersson, and a couple of new Swedish professors (Uppsala's shame!)
writing an unrefereed report of a secret experiment published on-line
claiming that Rossi has demonstrated a source of energy beyond chemical.


Some believers argue that this is what skeptics asked for, but it's not
even close. In early April, I said that it was not at all unlikely that
allegedly independent 3rd parties would claim clear evidence of LENR, but
then wrote:


"

*Allegedly independent 3rd parties could simply be some little-known
academics. But we already know from the BLP history that statements from
such academics mean squat. Especially if the academics appear to be
recruited […][E]ven if the statement is definite, a scientific
revolution will need more to go on than trust in a few recruited academics.
Individual academics, […] with unremarkable reputations, have essentially
nothing to lose by being wrong. In fact, if Rossi pays consulting fees,
they may have a lot to gain. [It's not, as some have said, P&F again,
because no one is paying attention, and so no one will notice if they get
it wrong.]*

**

*Skeptics have been asking for independent validation, but reports about a
black box from a few (or even a dozen) individuals is not that.*

**

*For exactly the same reason, it is unlikely a prominent journal will
publish claims of a new phenomenon that can't be tested by its audience.
So, if a report is published, it will be in a small-time journal, and no
matter how detailed, if it's a black-box test, it still relies on trust.*

**

*So what is needed? The best would be if the details of the reactor were
disclosed so others could test the claims, but of course that won't happen.
Next best would be if the reactor were made available on request, so it
could be tested by anyone. Also won't happen. Third best would be a public
demonstration involving some experts who are on the record as being
skeptical, and which is really transparent. With an energy density a
million times higher than dynamite, this should not be difficult. A
completely and obviously isolated device that produced unequivocal heat
many times its total weight in chemical fuel would do the trick (and should
be trivial).*

**

*Failing those, the only sort of validation that would have an impact is
one in which the independence is truly transparent, and the consequences of
being wrong are significant. This would be the case, for example, if Rossi
had an open invitation to major national laboratories to run the test, and
one or more openly and voluntarily sent a team for the purpose. Any labs
that offer to perform the test and are turned down would be in a position
to report that publicly. National labs or even university endorsed teams
have a lot more to lose than a few academics acting on their own. This is
less than perfect, but it would certainly draw a lot of attention. But I'm
pretty sure that's not gonna happen either. Alas.*

**

*Whatever happens in the next month or two, it will almost certainly have
no significant impact on mainstream science, and at most a ripple on the
mainstream media. A year from now, LENR and the ecat will be in exactly the
same place they are now, which is exactly where they were a year ago, and
where they were 2 years ago. There will be an eager internet following
expecting something big real soon now, but the rest of the world will
remain more or less oblivious.*

"


So, what has happened falls short of every criteria I considered that would
make it significant, and met precisely those criteria I said beforehand
would fall short. The authors are little-known academics, acting without
the backing of their institutions, and they certainly appear to ha

[Vo]:Hanno Essén's comments on the latest E-Cat third party report

[Akira Shirakawa]

Hello group,

Given the ongoing interest on Vortex-l, I think these comments by Hanno 
Essén on the latest third party report in a recent article by Phys.org 
might be worth of attention:


http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html

"I have followed the Rossi E-Cats for a couple of years now and 
participated in two experiments (including the present one) and read, 
and heard, about several other more or less independent ones," Essén 
told /Phys.org/. "My overall impression is that there must be something 
there, but scientists must always be cautious until everything has been 
checked and rechecked."


Read more at: 
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html#jCp
"I have followed the Rossi E-Cats for a couple of years now and 
participated in two experiments (including the present one) and read, 
and heard, about several other more or less independent ones," Essén 
told /Phys.org/. "My overall impression is that there must be something 
there, but scientists must always be cautious until everything has been 
checked and rechecked."


Read more at: 
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html#jCp
I have followed the Rossi E-Cats for a couple of years now and 
participated in two experiments (including the present one) and read, 
and heard, about several other more or less independent ones," Essén 
told Phys.org. "My overall impression is that there must be something 
there, but scientists must always be cautious until everything has 
been checked and rechecked."

[...]
"I got involved since, for the first time, an inventor of a new energy 
source was willing to allow meaningful observation and measurement," 
he said. "There is always a risk that career and reputation is 
damaged, but for me scientific curiosity always has higher priority."

[...]
"It is frustrating to observe a mysterious phenomenon but not be 
allowed to investigate it fully, yes," Essén said. "I understand, 
however, that inventors are mainly interested in commercial 
applications and that this requires the keeping of industrial secrets."


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat HT shows excess heat from H gas + Ni powder making Cu over days, three cautious multiday runs: Rich Murray 2013.05.22

[ken deboer]

I'm confused by the title  you use, "H gas + Ni powder making Cu over
days".  I'm not aware any copper, or any other transmutation product,  was
looked for or found. I confuse easily, so please enlighten.


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:01 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Hi Rich,
>
> Yeah, it’s pretty much consumed bandwidth in the Collective since it came
> out…
>
> -Mark 
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Rich Murray [mailto:rmfor...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:49 PM
> *To:* vortex-L@eskimo.com; Rich Murray
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat HT shows excess heat from H gas + Ni powder
> making Cu over days, three cautious multiday runs: Rich Murray 2013.05.22*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> Rossi E-Cat HT shows excess heat from H gas + Ni powder making Cu over
> days, three cautious multiday runs: Rich Murray 2013.05.22
>
>
> http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2013/05/rossi-e-cat-ht-shows-excess-heat-from-h.html
> 
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> So far, three days of vigorous discussions on several Net forums have not
> found any of the usual flaws...
>
> ** **
>
> Six months of study are planned for this summer.
>
> ** **
>
> For business reasons, no details are public about catalysts,  special
> waveforms of input electric power for internal heating resistors, and
> possible nuclear reactions are given, so theorists have little to work with.
> 
>
> ** **
>
> If new unknown nuclear physics exists, capable in small devices of melting
> steel in runaway thermal excursions, governments have a mandate to ensure
> that the physics is immediately studied in a crash program to assess the
> implications for national security and profound rapid human progress.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> "Figs. 1-2. Two images from the test performed on Nov. 20th 2012.
>
> ** **
>
> Here, the activation of the charge (distributed laterally in the reactor)
> is especially obvious.
>
> ** **
>
> The darker lines in the photograph are actually the shadows of the
> resistor coils, which yield only a minimal part of the total thermal power.
> 
>
> ** **
>
> The performance of this device was such that the reactor was destroyed,
> melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers. **
> **
>
> ** **
>
> The long term trials analyzed in the present report were purposely
> performed at a lower temperatures for safety reasons."
>
> ** **
>
> "Fig. 3 shows a thermal video frame from the IR camera: the temperature of
> 859 °C refers to Area 2 (delimited by the “cross hairs”), whereas the
> average temperature recorded for the body of the device, relevant to the
> rectangle indicated as Area 1, is 793 °C."
>
> ** **
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf
>
> free 29-page text with color photos and graphs
>
> ** **
>
> Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device
>
> containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder.
>
> Giuseppe Levi
>
> Bologna University, Bologna, Italy
>
> Evelyn Foschi
>
> Bologna, Italy
>
> Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér
>
> Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
>
> Hanno Essén
>
> Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
>
> ** **
>
> ABSTRACT
>
> ** **
>
> An experimental investigation of possible anomalous heat production in a
> special type of reactor tube named E-Cat HT is carried out. 
>
> ** **
>
> The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel
> powder plus some additives.
>
> ** **
>
> The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils inside the
> reactor tube.
>
> ** **
>
> Measurement of the produced heat was performed with high-resolution
> thermal imaging cameras, recording data every second from the hot reactor
> tube. 
>
> ** **
>
> The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large
> bandwidth three phase power analyzer.
>
> ** **
>
> Data were collected in two experimental runs lasting 96 and 116 hours,
> respectively.
>
> ** **
>
> An anomalous heat production was indicated in both experiments.
>
> ** **
>
> The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental
> set-up without the active charge present in the E-Cat HT.
>
> ** **
>
> In this case, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from
> the electric input.
>
> ** **
>
> Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far
> above those of any known chemical source. 
>
> ** **
>
> Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the
> measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than
> conventional energy sources.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>

[Vo]:Elforsk endorsement of E-Cat testing

[Akira Shirakawa]

Hello group,

Have a look here (Google translated):

http://www.elforsk.se/Aktuellt/Svenska-forskare-har-testat-Rossis-energikatalysator--E-cat/


Swedish researchers have tested Rossi energy catalyst - E-cat

Researchers from Uppsala University and KTH Stockholm has conducted 
measurements of the produced heat energy from a device called the 
E-cat. It is known as an energy catalyst invented by the Italian 
scientist Andrea Rossi.


The measurements show that the catalyst produces significantly more 
energy than can be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. The 
results are very remarkable. What lies behind the extraordinary heat 
production can not be explained today. There has been speculation over 
whether there can be any form of nuclear transformation. However, this 
is highly questionable. To learn more about what is going on you have 
to learn what is happening with the fuel and the waste it produces. 
The measurements have been funded by such Elforsk.


!!

Cheers,
S.A.

RE: [Vo]:A hybridized QM/CQM approach to the Rossi effect with Nickel-62

[Jones Beene]

 

Bob,

 

While it is true that Rossi's first demo had lead shielding, none of the
recent versions have had any shielding. You can see in the new paper and
pictures - there is no shielding. At the first demo 2011 - the radioactive
signal seen by Celani et al was seen at startup only. 

 

BTW - there was an elaborate detector setup used to look for radiation in
the initial and many other demos - in which sensors were placed under the
lead - and none of them saw radiation. There has never been data showing of
tens of keV - so there is no reason to imagine that there ever was any -
other than at startup.

 

The reason for this situation of needing lead shielding at one time - IMO is
that Rossi used only natural nickel at first, and this required  a
radioactive trigger at startup, but now he no longer uses bulk nickel so he
does not need a trigger nor shielding.

 

That changeover of design could have been because Rossi discovered (some
time in the last year) the identity of the active isotope. 

 

Once he pinpointed the active isotope, then he was able to enrich and no
longer needs the trigger nor the shielding.

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

As a Rossi watcher, I notice what he has done historically.  All of his low
temperature reactors have been lined with a thin layer of lead.  Rossi
states that the reaction emits low energy photons in the 10's of keV up to
about 100keV.  This is consistent with the amount of lead that has been seen
in photos of his reactors.  I don't believe this lead would be needed if the
photons from the reaction were only in the neighborhood of 300eV.  The 300eV
photons would be absorbed in the nickel-rich fuel, and the containing
stainless cell.

 

While the reaction you are describing could exist (I am unqualified to say),
I don't believe it is consistent with the "Rossi effect".

Jones Beene wrote:

As mentioned previously, the value of ~300 eV could be a key to
understanding the excess heat of the Rossi effect. This mass-energy level
would be witnessed as a photon at the upper limit of ultraviolet spectrum or
a soft x-ray. This value is most unusual for photon emission in condensed
matter - being far above chemical and far below nuclear origin; but it fits
the experimental results in a way that nothing else has been able to do.

 

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Robert Lynn]

Have a bit more of a think about it Jed, IR laser beams wouldn't need to be
any more intense than the heat being radiated by the E-cat.  In fact by
shining in from multiple directions they could be less intense than the
emitted heat from the E-cat (like concentrating relatively diffuse sunlight
to make something hotter at the focus point).  So how would that "burn or
blind people"?  Are you burnt or blinded by looking at something glowing
red-hot?

As for the other; are you seriously disputing that 2kW of AC electrical
power could be sent through those wires to the Ecat?  Take test 1: If 400V
rms AC was connected then that is only 5A rms which a 1mm diameter copper
wire can easily handle.

Now set up your 'visible' signal to be 50hZ 400V 2.5A turned on about 1/3
of time.  Meter detects this with ease.
Add a 50khz AC 400V rms 4A rms AC supply to that and you deliver another
1600W  that is invisible to the low frequency sensitive meter.
Knowing more about the meter would allow more sophisticated choices to beat
it.  DC might also be undetectable depending upon the instruments used.

Neither of these scenarios is likely, but they don't appear to be ruled out
by what is published.  The November melt-down demo is also very interesting.



On 22 May 2013 23:15, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> You are joking! I have seen lasers strike objects, such as the items in a
>> cash register checkout line. You can't miss that. It is obvious. We have
>> all seen it.
>>
>
> Oops. You said infrared lasers. My mistake.
>
> My other points hold. People would be burned and blinded.
>
> It just isn't possible.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:can Ethan's hidden double power wires explain regular exponential temperature rises and falls every 6 minutes for 5 days in Rossi HT2: Ethan: Rich Murray 2013.05.23

[Rich Murray]

can Ethan's hidden double power wires explain regular exponential
temperature rises and falls every 6 minutes for 5 days in Rossi HT2: Ethan:
Rich Murray 2013.05.23
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2013/05/can-ethans-hidden-double-power-wires.html


http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2013/05/rossi-e-cat-ht-shows-excess-heat-from-h.html

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/

comment #103  2013.05.23 Thursday noon PST

Ethan, I appreciate your spirited critique, especially the simple hidden
double wire scam -- which if power was actually supplied at high voltages,
could be very small in diameter.

I wonder if this can explain the remarkably constant temperature rises and
falls with exponential curves shown for runs of up to 5 days?

within the fellowship of service,  Rich Murray
rmforall at gmail.com


http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf

page 25 bottom:

Remarks on the test

An interesting aspect of the E-Cat HT2 is certainly its capacity to operate
in self-sustaining mode.

The values of temperature and production of energy which were obtained are
the result of averages not merely gained through data capture performed at
different times;
they are also relevant to the resistor coils’ ON/OFF cycle itself.

By plotting the average temperature vs time for a few minutes of test (Plot
3) one can clearly see how it varies between a maximum and a minimum value
with a fixed periodicity.

Plot 3. Average surface temperature trend of the E-Cat HT2 over several
minutes of operation.

Note the heating and cooling trends of the device, which appear to be
different from the exponential characteristics of generic resistor.

Looking at Plot 3, the first feature one notices is the appearance taken by
the curve in both the heating and cooling phases of the device.

If we compare these in detail with the standard curves of a generic
resistor (Plot 4 and Plot 5), we see that the former differ from the latter
in that they are not of the exponential type.

Plot 4. Comparing the typical heating curve of a generic resistor (left,
[Ref. 9]) to the one relevant to one of the E-Cat HT2’s ON states.

Finally, the complete ON/OFF cycle of the E-Cat HT2, as seen in Plot 3, may
be compared with the typical heating-cooling cycle of a resistor, as
displayed in Plot 6.

Plot 6. Heating and cooling cycle of a generic resistor [Ref. 9].

The trend is described by exponential type equations.

What appears obvious here is that the priming mechanism pertaining to some
sort of reaction inside the device speeds up the rise in temperature, and
keeps the temperatures higher during the cooling phase.

Another very interesting behavior is brought out by synchronically
comparing another two curves:
power produced over time by the E-Cat HT2, and power consumed during the
same time.

An example of this may be seen in Plot 7, which refers to about three hours
of test.

The resistor coils ON/OFF cycle is plotted in red, while the power-emission
trend of the device appears in blue.

Plot 8. Detail taken from Plot 7, reproducing the first two periods of the
cycle.

The three time intervals in which each period may be divided are labeled by
Roman numerals.

Further food for thought may be found by analyzing the trend of the ratio
between energy produced and energy consumed by the E-Cat HT2, as referred
to the same time interval dealt with in Plot 7.

The blue curve in Plot 9 is the result of the analysis, and is reproduced
here together with the red curve of power consumption normalized to 1.

Basically, for every second taken into account, the corresponding value of
the blue curve is calculated as the ratio between the sum of the power per
second emitted in all the previous seconds, and the sum of the power per
second consumed in all the previous seconds.

Plot 9. The blue curve is the result of the ratio between energy produced
and consumed by the E-Cat HT2, with reference to the same time instants
dealt with in Plot 7.

The red curve represents the ON/OFF trend of the resistor coils normalized
to 1.

All the above trends are remarkable, and warrant further in-depth enquiry.





can Ethan's hidden double power wires explain regular exponential
temperature rises and falls every 6 minutes for 5 days in Rossi HT2: Ethan:
Rich Murray 2013.05.23



http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2013/05/rossi-e-cat-ht-shows-excess-heat-from-h.html

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/

comment #103  2013.05.23 Thursday noon PST

Ethan, I appreciate your spirited critique, especially the simple hidden
double wire scam -- which if power was actually supplied at high voltages,
could be very small in diameter.

I wonder if this can explain the remarkably constant temperature rises and
falls with exponential curves shown for runs of up to 5 days?

within the fellowship of service,  Rich Murray
rmforall at gmail.com


http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxi

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Duncan Cumming]

 Original Message 
Subject:Fwd: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2013 10:20:27 -0700
From:   Duncan Cumming 
To: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com



I am acting as devils advocate here for a minute.

Had the demo been intentionally faked, there are a lot of much easier 
ways to do it than re-wiring the building! Power measurement was done 
using a wide band 3 phase power meter, a notoriously difficult 
instrument to use. A slight slackening of one of the current sensing 
clamps, a particle of grit (or Scotch tape) on the clamp face, or 
mis-threading of the cables through the clamps would give lower than 
actual power readings. A controller could easily be designed to 
bamboozle such a power meter, by exceeding either the shape factor or 
the bandwidth spec of the power meter. No measurements were made of the 
current waveform, which measurements would have immediately exposed such 
chicanery.


In short, the power measurement could have been fiddled very easily. Now 
I am not saying that it was, merely that it would have been easy to do 
so. The way to avoid such problems in the future would be simply to use 
DC to power the heaters. Or have the reactor tube tested at somebody 
else's facility, with a manufacturer's rep present to ensure that nobody 
saws the tube in half. Or to use an ordinary tube furnace with cooling 
coils for a self sustaining test.


In other words, if the manufacturer really wanted to test the reactor 
properly, they could - easily.


Duncan


 Original Message 
Subject:Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Resent-Date:Thu, 23 May 2013 09:01:42 -0700
Resent-From:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2013 08:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Alan Fletcher 
Reply-To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com




From: "Eric Walker"
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:00:43 PM
Alan (or someone) made the point that everything, laptop and all,
were plugged into the same power supply. Would hidden DC or AC above
or below the range of the meter hurt the laptop?


That was me -- and only a couple of things were plugged into the same socket -- 
the meter and a camera. The laptops were further over on a separate plug.

And of course, since the whole building was wired for the power-input fake, 
just that ONE socket for the controller would have been rigged, set up before 
the test team arrived. (Certainly for the December test -- they said it was 
already running.)

Re: [Vo]:Levi hotcat paper --- shutrossidown+motl

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan Fletcher wrote:


ps http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html
Nice diagram!  (Gee .. they cropped some stuff off it)


They darn well should have acknowledged you.

- Jed

[Vo]:Phys.org article on test of Ecat

[Harry Veeder]

Tests find Rossi's E-Cat has an energy density at least 10 times higher
than any conventional energy source

 http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html

<>


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Levi hotcat paper --- shutrossidown

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan Fletcher  wrote:


> Clearly not impressed.  Annotated paper at :
>
>
> http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/thoughts-on-the-latest-andrea-rossi-giuseppe-levi-and-hanno-essen-paper/


This paper or the whole website appears to be down. No great loss.

Someone familiar with Facebook should think about gathering stats on these
articles, to find out which is popular.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A hybridized QM/CQM approach to the Rossi effect with Nickel-62

[Bob Higgins]

As a Rossi watcher, I notice what he has done historically.  All of his low
temperature reactors have been lined with a thin layer of lead.  Rossi
states that the reaction emits low energy photons in the 10's of keV up to
about 100keV.  This is consistent with the amount of lead that has been
seen in photos of his reactors.  I don't believe this lead would be needed
if the photons from the reaction were only in the neighborhood of 300eV.
 The 300eV photons would be absorbed in the nickel-rich fuel, and the
containing stainless cell.

While the reaction you are describing could exist (I am unqualified to
say), I don't believe it is consistent with the "Rossi effect".

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> As mentioned previously, the value of ~300 eV could be a key to
> understanding the excess heat of the Rossi effect. This mass-energy level
> would be witnessed as a photon at the upper limit of ultraviolet spectrum
> or
> a soft x-ray. This value is most unusual for photon emission in condensed
> matter - being far above chemical and far below nuclear origin; but it fits
> the experimental results in a way that nothing else has been able to do.
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi hotcat paper --- shutrossidown+motl

[Alan Fletcher]

> Clearly not impressed.  Annotated paper at :
> 
> http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/thoughts-on-the-latest-andrea-rossi-giuseppe-levi-and-hanno-essen-paper/
> 
> I've only skimmed it. Jed is mentioned.

Also, MOTL (#81) shows up at science blogs  I was very tempted to critique 
his comments ..
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/

ps http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html
Nice diagram!  (Gee .. they cropped some stuff off it)

RE: [Vo]:Levi hotcat paper --- shutrossidown

[Roarty, Francis X]

Someone actually paid for the url "shutdownrossi.com ? Altruistic rarely 
extends to paid attacks... I would ignore any information on a site with this 
sort of url.
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Levi hotcat paper --- shutrossidown

Clearly not impressed.  Annotated paper at :

http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/thoughts-on-the-latest-andrea-rossi-giuseppe-levi-and-hanno-essen-paper/

I've only skimmed it. Jed is mentioned.

[Vo]:Hanno Essen comments on third party E-Cat report

[Akira Shirakawa]

Test message

If this email gets in, there are some comments by Hanno Essen on the 
latest third party report on phys.org: 
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html


S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Edmund Storms]

On May 22, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:


Ed,

I think the structure of the coulomb barrier is open to intrinsic  
modification, but the variables governing this possibility cannot be  
uncovered by the tools and concepts of high energy physics.


I agree. In fact, the insistence that high energy physics be used is  
the flaw in the skeptical arguments.


In most situations the coulomb barrier behaves in a textbook  
fashion, but when bathed in the right vibrations the barrier can be  
"tuned" to "soften".


I think a different description is more useful. The two nuclei have  
first to get critically close together by intervention of an electron.  
This process is conventional.  Once this happens and the bond can  
resonate, the periodic reduction in distance causes the nuclei to emit  
a photon (gamma).  Each emitted photon allows hte distance to be  
reduced because the energy of the system has now been reduced, which  
reduces the Coulomb barrier. After enough photons have been emitted,  
the two nuclei collapse into one, which is the nuclear product. Of  
course, the intervening electron that is required to reduce the  
barrier is sucked into the final nucleus.


This model requires the nuclei to "know" that they must emit energy  
when they get close and that magnitude of the Coulomb barrier is  
sensitive to the excess mass-energy of the two nuclei.


Ed Storms

This "softening" reduces the height of the barrier so that much less  
energy is required for fusion, but it will also enable the gradual  
dissipation of fusion

energy you have postulated.

Harry

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Harry, calculations are useless in this case because the mechanism  
is unknown to which the calculations can be applied. We know that  
the mechanism for fusion and transmutation must be the same, which  
means they both must occur in the same NAE. I can describe a process  
that fits this requirement, but not here.


As a basic fact, the barrier can be either lowered by intervention  
of negative charge or overcome by sufficient energy. Regardless of  
which method is used, the energy resulting from transmutation must  
be dissipated gradually before the final isotope is formed.  
Otherwise, a strong gamma must be emitted to conserve momentum. In  
addition, the method used to get over the barrier will be more  
difficult than required for fusion, as you pointed out. So,  
something very unique is required. I find that use of extra energy  
from fusion is a more logical method than assembly of the required  
large negative charge.  Do you agree?


Ed Storms


On May 22, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:


Ed,

I am intrigued by your idea that the lack of gammas could be  
explained by fusion process which happens gradually rather than  
suddenly as is the case with hot fusion.
However,   on the one hand you say the fusion of protons and  
deuterons supplies the energy necessary to over come coulomb  
repulsion between Ni nucleus and the fusion products, but on the  
other hand you do not say where the energy comes from to over come  
the coulomb repulsion that exists among protons and deuterons.
While it is possible to reduce the energy required by placing an  
electron between protons and deuterons I doubt this will generate  
enough fusion reactions and energy if coulomb's law is correct. Or  
have you done calculations which show that it will?


Harry

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Edmund Storms > wrote:
No Harry, the Coulomb barrier is the same in Hot and Cold fusion.  
The difference is that it is overcome very rapidly during hot  
fusion and very slowly during cold fusion. That is the only  
difference between the two methods. This difference results in a  
different behavior.


Yes, a theory should explain transmutation and mine does. However,  
transmutation can only occur as a minor consequence of fusion.  
Fusion must be taking place first, which provides the conditions  
and energy to get over the huge Coulomb barrier associated with  
transmutation. As a result, the heat results from the fusion  
reaction, while a little transmutation occurs and contributes a  
very small amount of energy.  The two reactions must work together  
because they both have to follow the same rules, according to my  
approach


Ed Storms
On May 22, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:

You propose that the coulomb barrier is structured differently  
from how it is normally portrayed in textbooks, and it is this  
difference that permits the low temperature fusion of protons and  
deuterons and energy production. Wouldn't the same difference help  
to explain how transmutations can happen as well? It seems to me a  
good theory should be able to explain both transmutations and  
energy production even if the nuclei involved differ in each case.


Harry
.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms > wrote:
Yes, Harry this is one of the several reasons why transmutation  
cannot

[Vo]:A hybridized QM/CQM approach to the Rossi effect with Nickel-62

[Jones Beene]

Greetings,

As mentioned previously, the value of ~300 eV could be a key to
understanding the excess heat of the Rossi effect. This mass-energy level
would be witnessed as a photon at the upper limit of ultraviolet spectrum or
a soft x-ray. This value is most unusual for photon emission in condensed
matter - being far above chemical and far below nuclear origin; but it fits
the experimental results in a way that nothing else has been able to do. 

All of the excess heat of the reaction of Nickel-62 with hydrogen could
depend on emission of photons in this spectrum, which in this hypothesis is
based on a modification of the prior work of Mills. In terms of CQM (the
original theory of Randell Mills) this value represents the 11th Rydberg
multiple (27.2 eV * 11). In the nickel atom, it represents the sum of the
first 6 electron ionization potentials. For nickel, that total is 299.96 eV
and the perfect fit would be 299.2 eV. 

Nickel has 10 valence electrons and 28 total electrons, and it should be
noted that the first five IP electrons of Nickel also represent a lesser but
close Rydberg "fit" and that there could be significance to having a fit at
two adjacent levels. However, these ionization levels are deep, and for all
practical purposes there is little way that we would see "real" thermal
ionization which could remove 6 valence electrons to create the required
"energy hole" with which to catalyze the redundant ground state of hydrogen.
This is where we must depart from Mills into what looks like normal QM
(which is specifically rejected by Mills).

The salient issue is "how" does this kind of deep energy hole develop
without physical ionization? The answer to that can be labeled as collapse
of the electron wave-function of the nickel atom's electron shell, due to
local charge imbalance. This goes well beyond the prior usage of the term
(collapse of the wave-function) to represent a figment of viewer
interaction. 

A charge imbalance is the direct result of what makes nickel-62 unique in
the periodic table. In this hypothesis that imbalance can result in a
spontaneous collapse and decoherence - which almost immediately returns to a
coherent state, but with anomalous side-effects. Remember, this nickel
isotope is a singularity - having the highest bonding strength per nuclide
in the periodic table. That bond strength (8.8 MeV per nucleon) indicates
one latent physical factor: excess neutrons per unit of expressed nuclear
charge. By all rights Ni-62 should represent more than 3.6 percent of all
nickel atoms, since it possesses the highest bonding strength possible, but
that is balanced by Coulomb instability. This is precisely why the nucleus
with the highest binding strength is found in low enrichment. 

In short, this isotope has the maximum percentage of excess neutrons
possible per nuclear charge, and teeters on the edge of electrostatic
stability. Of course, the further up one goes in the periodic table, the
greater the ratio of Neutrons to Protons, but the bond strength per nucleon
goes progressively down. Nickel-62 represents the absolute maximum value for
effective positive "charge shielding" - which will be defined as the ability
of neutrons to spatially shield some of the normal positive charge (near
field charge). Positive charge must balance against the net electron charge.
This is a fine point but a very critical point. There is inherent charge
instability in Ni-62 which is ironically the result of its extreme nuclear
bond strength. 

Next, consider ductility and proton adsorption->absorption. Ductile metals
like nickel, are tough because the atoms are forced together by a "sea of
electrons". The negative charge agglomeration (electron glue) is subject to
self-limiting Coulomb forces from the nucleus. At the limit of electron
cohesive strength, we may also find a decoupling to nuclear stability and
the beginning of the next plateau of "friability". Since Ni-62 is neutron
heavy, this has stronger implications for the expression of positive charge
when another species is near the electron cloud, and poised to enter the
nuclear cloud. Thus Ni-62 would be in a slot where it will fail
catastrophically via a wave-function collapse triggered by local excess
charge. 

Too much negative charge, in effect which affects adjacent protons in some
way, even if the nickel eigenstate cannot evolve net energy. With nickel,
this collapse will occasionally involve the 5th and 6th cumulative
ionization levels especially the 6th which is an almost perfect energy
"hole" for ground state (Rydberg) redundancy. The resulting photon is ~ 300
eV which will not show up on any gamma detector, but gives hundreds of times
more heat than a chemical reaction.

To see if any other researcher had seen or documented this value -  a search
turns up Biberian's report that this exact value was seen in Japan in a
nickel-copper experiment. Here is the relevant quote:

"As for the heat balance, the endothermic tendency was observed both

[Vo]:Levi hotcat paper --- shutrossidown

[Alan Fletcher]

Clearly not impressed.  Annotated paper at :

http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/thoughts-on-the-latest-andrea-rossi-giuseppe-levi-and-hanno-essen-paper/

I've only skimmed it. Jed is mentioned.

[Vo]:E-Cat HT resistor placement and duty factors may prevent local hot spots

[Roarty, Francis X]

The Forbes paper did give me a better insight to the scale and geometry of the 
Rossi reactors where the cylinder length is 33 cm for both the  outer and inner 
cylinder. The outter cylinder is 10 centimeters in diameter while the inner 
cylinder which holds the powder charge is only 33 millimeters in diameter and 
placed along the center axis. A 3rd ceramic cylinder fits between the outer and 
inner cylinder and holds 3 wire wound resistors equidistant from the center 
axis and each the full length of the cylinder such that "sequenced" power 
interruption of their 3 phase power source by their triac regulators should 
"roll" the peak thermal exposure around the surface of the inner cylinder they 
are designed to heat. Or am I just stating the obvious? We have always 
suspected this device requires a fine balance between draining away heat and 
initiating heating to prevent self destruction or stalling out, and the 
equidistant placement plus sequencing sure seems to reinforce that concern.
Fran



>From Forbes article 
>http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/
>  They described the E-Cat HT as:[snip] a cylinder having a silicon nitride 
>ceramic outer shell, 33 cm in length, and 10 cm in diameter. A second cylinder 
>made of a different ceramic material (corundum) was located within the shell, 
>and housed three delta-connected spiral-wire resistor coils. Resistors were 
>laid out horizontally, parallel to and equidistant from the cylinder axis, and 
>were as long as the cylinder itself. They were fed by a TRIAC power regulator 
>device which interrupted each phase periodically, in order to modulate power 
>input with an industrial trade secret waveform. This procedure, needed to 
>properly activate the E-Cat HT charge, had no bearing whatsoever on the power 
>consumption of the device, which remained constant throughout the test. The 
>most important element of the E-Cat HT was lodged inside the structure. It 
>consisted of an AISI 310 steel cylinder, 3 mm thick and 33 mm in diameter, 
>housing the powder charges. Two AISI 316 steel cone-shaped caps were 
>hot-hammered in the cylinder, sealing it hermetically. [/snip]

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Eric Walker" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:16:55 AM
> I wrote:

> Lubos Motl does not appear to be drawing a distinction between TeX
> and LaTeX; he is drawing a distinction between TeX/LaTeX, on one
> hand, and a simple PDF typed up in a normal word processor, on the
> other. Presumably the former would be the expected form of
> submission to a mainstream physics journal. This is one of the
> details that makes me think there is no intention to submit for
> publication.

http://www.investorvillage.com/mbthread.asp?mb=476&tid=12816817&showall=1

Posted 5/23/2013  4:00:15 AM by Gustav  
It is not written in Latin so I am afraid isn't legit


> Another reason to think they do not intend to submit for publication
> in a reputable scientific journal -- they cite Wikipedia (ref. 8, at
> the end). 

Lordy, lordy -- it's firgin diagram -- a compilation of generally available 
information, and not really central to the paper.
 
> Another point worth mentioning -- this paper has followed the
> approach of the August 7, 2012, paper cited elsewhere very closely
> [2]. In that paper there was the Ragone diagram, the infrared
> camera, the radiation measurements by David Bianchini, the
> Stefan-Boltzmann equation, etc. One gets the distinct impression
> that the May 2013 paper used the August 2012 paper as a template.
> This is not a problem in and of itself, but it makes plausible
> suspicions to the effect that a less than objective observer (Levi)
> led a possibly flawed effort modeled closely on an earlier one and
> that the Swedish members of the team might have allowed their names
> to be added to the paper without doing sufficient due diligence.

We don't know who suggested the radiometric calorimetry method and the use of 
the Ragone plot. Chicken? Egg?
And even if Levi et al DID follow he previous methodology, is that bad?

RE: [Vo]:Some reasons Rossi has personal credibility

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Mark:

 

>> SVJ writes, "I thought Krivit had been 'honored' with a so-called

>> demo when he visited Rossi's lab."

 

> What Krivit was likely EXPECTING was a 'test';

> what he GOT was a 'demo'; two very different things.

> 

> Was it reasonable for Krivit (a journalist) to expect the same kind of

> 'test' done for a group of scientists?  Did he discuss his visit in

> detail with Rossi so that they both were on the same page as to what

> to expect?  Only two people know the answer to that. Most unfortunate

> for both.

 

Krivit's handling of his observations of Rossi's "demo" resulted in a prime
example of Captain Ahab spotting the white whale that must be harpooned.

 

I've seen this kind of mentality played out in other scenarios. Typically it
doesn't end very well. The goal of utter destruction of the target rarely
happens. The most notorious example I can recall was a long-standing spat
that went on-and-on between two well-known UFO investigators, Kevin Randle
and Donald Schmitt back in the 1990s. IMHO, Both individuals are good UFO
investigators who at one time were partnered together. Unfortunately,
personality quirks and some really stupid personal decisions made by Schmitt
caused a huge riff between these two investigators, a riff that lasted for a
very long time. Kevin felt he needed to hunt Schmitt down at every corner
and discredit him. I once asked Kevin how long was he going to continue
"...hunting his whale?" Kevin's response: "Until it's dead." Of course, it
didn't work.

 

I'm sure Mr. Blanton knows a little about this incident. 

 

Some individuals will never forgive Schmitt's behavior, and I certainly have
to admit the fact that Kevin Randle had very good reason to be pissed off.
Curiously, It's my understanding that these two individuals have since
managed to patch up some of their original riffs. Let bygones be bygones.
Get on with the show.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

 

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Eric Walker" 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:00:43 PM
> Alan (or someone) made the point that everything, laptop and all,
> were plugged into the same power supply. Would hidden DC or AC above
> or below the range of the meter hurt the laptop?

That was me -- and only a couple of things were plugged into the same socket -- 
the meter and a camera. The laptops were further over on a separate plug.

And of course, since the whole building was wired for the power-input fake, 
just that ONE socket for the controller would have been rigged, set up before 
the test team arrived. (Certainly for the December test -- they said it was 
already running.)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

Lubos Motl does not appear to be drawing a distinction between TeX and
> LaTeX; he is drawing a distinction between TeX/LaTeX, on one hand, and a
> simple PDF typed up in a normal word processor, on the other.  Presumably
> the former would be the expected form of submission to a mainstream physics
> journal.  This is one of the details that makes me think there is no
> intention to submit for publication.
>

Another reason to think they do not intend to submit for publication in a
reputable scientific journal -- they cite Wikipedia (ref. 8, at the end).
(This tip courtesy of HolyFreakinGhost in the comments to [1]). I am a big
fan of Wikipedia; far more so than Jed.  But one would hesitate to cite
Wikipedia as an authority in an article being prepared for submission to a
mainstream science journal.  The truth is that this paper has been prepared
in the manner of cold fusion papers -- a best effort, and with the promise
of thought-provoking substantive claims, but without the level of attention
to detail (formatting, punctuation, etc.) expected of a submission to a
normal journal.  We should not be surprised when people balk at these
things.

Another point worth mentioning -- this paper has followed the approach of
the August 7, 2012, paper cited elsewhere very closely [2].  In that paper
there was the Ragone diagram, the infrared camera, the radiation
measurements by David Bianchini, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, etc.  One
gets the distinct impression that the May 2013 paper used the August 2012
paper as a template.  This is not a problem in and of itself, but it makes
plausible suspicions to the effect that a less than objective observer
(Levi) led a possibly flawed effort modeled closely on an earlier one and
that the Swedish members of the team might have allowed their names to be
added to the paper without doing sufficient due diligence.

The point I'm making has less to do with the substance of the paper than
the execution -- what is the paper trying to achieve, and who is the
audience it is trying to convince?  If the audience are mainstream
scientists, I doubt it will have the intended effect.

Eric

[1]
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2013/05/22/e_cat_test_claims_success_yet_again/
[2]
http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf