[Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
It is unfortunate that Mr. Rossi did not use all three cores of his ECAT for the October 6, 2011 test. The results would have indicated at least 2 times the observed energy production. I have completed an extensive review of the data collected during that October 6 test and it is apparent that we missed the big show. It is not clear as to why Rossi chose to limit the ECAT to the 1 core test case, but I suspect that it was part of his plan to dazzle the world with the October 28 demonstration. It is possible that the control of the 1 MW system was more difficult than Rossi anticipated which led to the decision to throttle it back to 470 kW. In my opinion, the demonstration of the system at the reduced power level for the extensive period of time was not a major failure. It would have been surprising if the test had achieved all that Rossi expected since many unknown problems often arise with complex systems such as this. The worst issue that we face is the continued barrage of criticism on this list that mainly is a result of the skeptic’s total disbelief in anything related to cold fusion. I wonder if they would have been swayed had the data demonstrated the dramatic excess energy that I calculated with 3 cores. I have a feeling that something else would have given them reason to complain. Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:35 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is unfortunate that Mr. Rossi did not use all three cores of his ECAT for the October 6, 2011 test. The results would have indicated at least 2 times the observed energy production. I have completed an extensive review of the data collected during that October 6 test and it is apparent that we missed the big show. It is not clear as to why Rossi chose to limit the ECAT to the 1 core test case, but I suspect that it was part of his plan to dazzle the world with the October 28 demonstration. That ineffective and unwitnessed demo dazzled the world? Exactly how? It was a leaky device powered it seems from a diesel generator. Nobody invited was allowed to witness a single measurement. The data were provided on three dirty sheets of paper in hand writing. Dazzling is it? It is possible that the control of the 1 MW system was more difficult than Rossi anticipated which led to the decision to throttle it back to 470 kW. In my opinion, the demonstration of the system at the reduced power level for the extensive period of time was not a major failure. It would have been surprising if the test had achieved all that Rossi expected since many unknown problems often arise with complex systems such as this. The worst issue that we face is the continued barrage of criticism on this list that mainly is a result of the skeptic’s total disbelief in anything related to cold fusion. Nonsense. The reason for the barrage has been discussed many times and has nothing to do with cold fusion at all. It has to do with a failure of Rossi to provide the necessary evidence for anything extraordinary at all. I am dismayed by the barrage of misinformation and speculation about an entirely unproven supposed technology Rossi claims to have. The projections and concern about what the world will do with all the energy Rossi is about to provide is bordering on hilarious. Talk about counting chickens before the eggs hatch! I wonder if they would have been swayed had the data demonstrated the dramatic excess energy that I calculated with 3 cores. I have a feeling that something else would have given them reason to complain. The basic problems of too short runs, too little total energy, uncertain possibilities of faking the output, bad measurement methods --all would remain with three cores. What would solve the issue for skeptics and believers alike are tests by a university. Any idea why Rossi doesn't have them done? They can be done without risking his confidentiality and secrets.How long has it been since he's been making claims and lousy demos?
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
I expect a lot of people witnessing the operation of a 470 kW cold fusion system would be dazzled. Some can not be dazzled at all by any means. Those not dazzled by this are missing history unfold before them. Why complain about leaks? Is that your main problem? The main show was the big system before you, the data was merely proof. Rossi owes you nothing. He is the inventor of the system and he makes the choices. Get over it. Some of us can see through the mist, others can not. I feel sorry for those who lack vision. Rossi has his plans. We can beg, cry or whatever makes us feel good. You will just have to wait with the rest of us for him to make the next move. Our words do not seem to effect him in any way. It is hilarious that you do not realize that he is in control. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 1:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:35 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is unfortunate that Mr. Rossi did not use all three cores of his ECAT for the October 6, 2011 test. The results would have indicated at least 2 times the observed energy production. I have completed an extensive review of the data collected during that October 6 test and it is apparent that we missed the big show. It is not clear as to why Rossi chose to limit the ECAT to the 1 core test case, but I suspect that it was part of his plan to dazzle the world with the October 28 demonstration. That ineffective and unwitnessed demo dazzled the world? Exactly how? It was a leaky device powered it seems from a diesel generator. Nobody invited was allowed to witness a single measurement. The data were provided on three dirty sheets of paper in hand writing. Dazzling is it? It is possible that the control of the 1 MW system was more difficult than Rossi anticipated which led to the decision to throttle it back to 470 kW. In my opinion, the demonstration of the system at the reduced power level for the extensive period of time was not a major failure. It would have been surprising if the test had achieved all that Rossi expected since many unknown problems often arise with complex systems such as this. The worst issue that we face is the continued barrage of criticism on this list that mainly is a result of the skeptic’s total disbelief in anything related to cold fusion. Nonsense. The reason for the barrage has been discussed many times and has nothing to do with cold fusion at all. It has to do with a failure of Rossi to provide the necessary evidence for anything extraordinary at all. I am dismayed by the barrage of misinformation and speculation about an entirely unproven supposed technology Rossi claims to have. The projections and concern about what the world will do with all the energy Rossi is about to provide is bordering on hilarious. Talk about counting chickens before the eggs hatch! I wonder if they would have been swayed had the data demonstrated the dramatic excess energy that I calculated with 3 cores. I have a feeling that something else would have given them reason to complain. The basic problems of too short runs, too little total energy, uncertain possibilities of faking the output, bad measurement methods --all would remain with three cores. What would solve the issue for skeptics and believers alike are tests by a university. Any idea why Rossi doesn't have them done? They can be done without risking his confidentiality and secrets.How long has it been since he's been making claims and lousy demos?
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:13 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I expect a lot of people witnessing the operation of a 470 kW cold fusion system would be dazzled. Some can not be dazzled at all by any means. Those not dazzled by this are missing history unfold before them. Why complain about leaks? Is that your main problem? The main show was the big system before you, the data was merely proof. You're right, the leaks don't really matter. That the device was not independently tested except by a possibly mythical anonymous client does matter. That a generator was connected the whole run matters. That the invited guests including scientists and reporters were not shown any measurement data while it was collected matters. For all we know, all that we saw was a piece of art, not science and technology-- window dressing -- a sham and a delusion. Rossi owes you nothing. He is the inventor of the system and he makes the choices. Get over it. I am not sure what you mean by that. Of course Rossi owes me nothing. I'm over it. So what? Rossi has wondrous claims and no independent evidence. You need to face that and not get over it. You are very likely to get bamboozled and end up looking foolish if you don't do more critical thinking about Rossi's claims! Some of us can see through the mist, others can not. I feel sorry for those who lack vision. There's no need for mist. Rossi could make the evidence for the claims crystal clear and he doesn't. Why do you think it is? A lot of self-styled visionaries end up eating their words and getting scammed. It's nice to have an open mind. It's also nice to have proof of extraordinary claims. Rossi has his plans. We can beg, cry or whatever makes us feel good. You will just have to wait with the rest of us for him to make the next move. Our words do not seem to effect him in any way. Actually they do. I watch him bob and weave daily in accord with what is printed about him. Remember the snakes and clowns rant? And words don't affect him? Krivit's report certainly seemed to. It is hilarious that you do not realize that he is in control. Some people have been way too content to let Rossi control the tests. That's a big mistake. Those people seem to have learned little from all the scams that have come before -- it's the part you don't get completely that will get you.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
If Rossi did use three cores (assuming he didn't before): The energy output may increase, but we'd still still be without any method to acually measure it, because of his calorimetry. The energy consumed would have tripled, too, with a zero-net-gain possibility still on the table. The October 6th test only needed proper calorimetry by independent observers. That's it. I seriously question Rossi's claims because this should be easy to demonstrate. They appear to be intentionally convoluted. Furthermore, his history should give us pause, and ample justification for caution. His efforts with biodiesel (Petroldragon) and thermoelectric generation (LTI) were both instances of taking real science, and claiming breakthroughs, sometimes orders-of-magnitude better, than everyone else. Keep this in mind. It is not much different than taking a few watts claimed by Piantelli, and claiming thousands. PF have NOTHING to do with my skeptical view of Rossi. Rossi and his weak demonstrations have everything to do with it. I sincerely hope than Ni-H will match the claims the aggressive claims that have been made. It would create a new industrial revolution, where cheap energy makes desalinization, industrial farming, and so much more, possible. The evidence just isn't there for Rossi's claims. David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is unfortunate that Mr. Rossi did not use all three cores of his ECAT for the October 6, 2011 test. The results would have indicated at least 2 times the observed energy production. I have completed an extensive review of the data collected during that October 6 test and it is apparent that we missed the big show. It is not clear as to why Rossi chose to limit the ECAT to the 1 core test case, but I suspect that it was part of his plan to dazzle the world with the October 28 demonstration. It is possible that the control of the 1 MW system was more difficult than Rossi anticipated which led to the decision to throttle it back to 470 kW. In my opinion, the demonstration of the system at the reduced power level for the extensive period of time was not a major failure. It would have been surprising if the test had achieved all that Rossi expected since many unknown problems often arise with complex systems such as this. The worst issue that we face is the continued barrage of criticism on this list that mainly is a result of the skeptic’s total disbelief in anything related to cold fusion. I wonder if they would have been swayed had the data demonstrated the dramatic excess energy that I calculated with 3 cores. I have a feeling that something else would have given them reason to complain. Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
Actually, there is no reason to believe that it will require additional input energy to activate the 2 extra cores. He has a COP of 6 when all are used which results in an output of 1558 * 6 = 9348 each ECAT of 107 total. I used the test data to determine that this was entirely in line with the results expected in the driven mode. He did not use 3 for his testthe output of the 1 MW system proved that indirectly. It is clear to me that Rossi does not want it to be easy to determine. Everyone needs to understand that. He is using misdirection to his advantage. You have a valid point about his history. But, the results of this test speak for themselves. I fail to believe that so many important people are in a scam with Rossi. It is just not credible to me. The Ni-H system is the one we have been waiting for. It will make history. Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 2:32 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing If Rossi did use three cores (assuming he didn't before): he energy output may increase, but we'd still still be without any method to cually measure it, because of his calorimetry. he energy consumed would have tripled, too, with a zero-net-gain possibility till on the table. The October 6th test only needed proper calorimetry by independent observers. hat's it. I seriously question Rossi's claims because this should be easy to emonstrate. They appear to be intentionally convoluted. Furthermore, his istory should give us pause, and ample justification for caution. His efforts with biodiesel (Petroldragon) and thermoelectric generation (LTI) ere both instances of taking real science, and claiming breakthroughs, ometimes orders-of-magnitude better, than everyone else. Keep this in mind. It s not much different than taking a few watts claimed by Piantelli, and claiming housands. PF have NOTHING to do with my skeptical view of Rossi. Rossi and is weak demonstrations have everything to do with it. I sincerely hope than Ni-H will match the claims the aggressive claims that have een made. It would create a new industrial revolution, where cheap energy akes desalinization, industrial farming, and so much more, possible. The evidence just isn't there for Rossi's claims. avid Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is unfortunate that Mr. Rossi did not use all three cores of his ECAT for he October 6, 2011 test. The results would have indicated at least 2 times the bserved energy production. I have completed an extensive review of the data collected during that October test and it is apparent that we missed the big show. It is not clear as to hy Rossi chose to limit the ECAT to the 1 core test case, but I suspect that it as part of his plan to dazzle the world with the October 28 demonstration. It is possible that the control of the 1 MW system was more difficult than ossi anticipated which led to the decision to throttle it back to 470 kW. In y opinion, the demonstration of the system at the reduced power level for the xtensive period of time was not a major failure. It would have been surprising f the test had achieved all that Rossi expected since many unknown problems ften arise with complex systems such as this. The worst issue that we face is the continued barrage of criticism on this list hat mainly is a result of the skeptic’s total disbelief in anything related to old fusion. I wonder if they would have been swayed had the data demonstrated he dramatic excess energy that I calculated with 3 cores. I have a feeling hat something else would have given them reason to complain. Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:29 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is clear to me that Rossi does not want it to be easy to determine. At least, in that, he succeeds. But, the results of this test speak for themselves. But like you just said, they don't speak clearly. Actually, none of the results require nuclear reactions to explain them. I fail to believe that so many important people are in a scam with Rossi. It is just not credible to me. I doubt that anyone other than Rossi is involved in a scam (maybe his wife). Most of the others demonstrated that they are not qualified to evaluate the tests by their failure to understand steam. And who cares about the credibility of the scam. The issue is the credibility of the experiment, which is not. The Ni-H system is the one we have been waiting for. It will make history. I fail to understand why you think a believer's statement like this will have any influence on people skeptical of the claims for technical reasons. It is just not credible to me.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
/snip/ Actually, there is no reason to believe that it will require additional input energy to activate the 2 extra cores. He has a COP of 6 when all are used which results in an output of 1558 * 6 = 9348 each ECAT of 107 total. I used the test data to determine that this was entirely in line with the results expected in the driven mode. He did not use 3 for his testthe output of the 1 MW system proved that indirectly. /snip/ If the 3 cells are in parallel, you have 3 core heaters. Tripling the number of parallel loads, would result in one third of the circuit's reactance, and therefore three times the total current... V x A(3) = Power(3) Tripling input power
RE: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
By reactance, I misspoke, meaning impedance, but you get the point. If each wafer has its own core heater, the input current would have to triple to support three cells. Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:40:24 -0600 Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com /snip/ Actually, there is no reason to believe that it will require additional input energy to activate the 2 extra cores. He has a COP of 6 when all are used which results in an output of 1558 * 6 = 9348 each ECAT of 107 total. I used the test data to determine that this was entirely in line with the results expected in the driven mode. He did not use 3 for his testthe output of the 1 MW system proved that indirectly. /snip/ If the 3 cells are in parallel, you have 3 core heaters. Tripling the number of parallel loads, would result in one third of the circuit's reactance, and therefore three times the total current... V x A(3) = Power(3) Tripling input power
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is clear to me that Rossi does not want it to be easy to determine. Everyone needs to understand that. He is using misdirection to his advantage. I believe he does use misdirection, but in this case I'm pretty sure he just did not want the thing to get too hot. Even as late as October 6 I think it was he was having problems with control. I say that because the machine refused to turn on. You can see in the data that it starts to produce heat and then abruptly stops, up to 280 min. It works like a cranky internal combustion engine that keeps stalling. During the 18 hour test in February, the machine clearly went out of control. If I had something like that I would not run it as hot as it can go. In this case, running with only one cell enabled produces a clear signal. I do not see any advantage to running all three, if the purpose is to do a convincing demonstration. People were not convinced by 8 kW will not be convinced by 24 kW, or 24 MW for that matter. The duration was also long enough to satisfy any rational demand for proof. Mary Yugo and others keep saying the run was too short even though it was 24 times longer than anyone needs to be sure the effect is real. She sets arbitrary goals, and then whenever Rossi meets one of those goals, she sets another. There is no technical justification for demanding higher power or a longer run. Both are far, far beyond what anyone else has accomplished, and far beyond any rational doubt. There is not the slightest chance the self-sustaining event can be explained with stored heat or chemistry. I suppose if Yugo had watched Wilbur Wright's flight on Sept. 9, 1908 lasting 57 minutes, 31 seconds, she would have said: I will not believe he can really fly until he goes for an hour!!! Then, later that day when he flew for 1 hour 2 minutes, she would say: I will not believe it until he flies for TWO HOURS. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
I do not think anyone could say that it is not possible to make a sophisticated scam of an ECAT. Rossi has helped the skeptical among us by allowing this to be the case. Do you honestly think that he is not aware of this possibility? Why 1 core? Why the relatively short test? All of these issues point to a planned attempt to misdirect. He has his reasons and I am not sure that we will ever find out why. Like I have said before, his 1 MW system was his real attempt to dazzle us. The skeptics among us have conveniently disregarded the results of this test for their reasons. I am a bit unhappy with the fact that he did not give us good data to work with following this test, but he might be honest about the reason. It will not be long before the truth will come out about Rossi's system. Many of us think it is the real thing. The others should be praying that it is. I guess I should modify my last sentence. Some others hope that the ECAT is a scam, especially those who make a living based upon industries that will be replaced. I think it is a moral issue to give support to people like Rossi who can really make a large positive impact upon the world. Where do you stand? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 4:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:29 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is clear to me that Rossi does not want it to be easy to determine. At least, in that, he succeeds. But, the results of this test speak for themselves. But like you just said, they don't speak clearly. Actually, none of the results require nuclear reactions to explain them. I fail to believe that so many important people are in a scam with Rossi. It is just not credible to me. I doubt that anyone other than Rossi is involved in a scam (maybe his wife). Most of the others demonstrated that they are not qualified to evaluate the tests by their failure to understand steam. And who cares about the credibility of the scam. The issue is the credibility of the experiment, which is not. The Ni-H system is the one we have been waiting for. It will make history. I fail to understand why you think a believer's statement like this will have any influence on people skeptical of the claims for technical reasons. It is just not credible to me.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
This is a misconception of Rossi's device. The heat is common to the region where the cores are located. Since each core generates extra heat, none is actually lost. In fact they effect each other in a positive feedback manner. How do you think that he achieves a COP of 6 in the 3 core unit otherwise? The COP is only approximately 3 with 1 core. I know the data is confusing. The thermocouples are tricky at best, but there are some data points that can be trusted. Working with these, I was able to untangle the mess. Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 4:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing /snip/ Actually, there is no reason to believe that it will require additional input nergy to activate the 2 extra cores. He has a COP of 6 when all are used which esults in an output of 1558 * 6 = 9348 each ECAT of 107 total. I used the test ata to determine that this was entirely in line with the results expected in he driven mode. He did not use 3 for his testthe output of the 1 MW system roved that indirectly. snip/ f the 3 cells are in parallel, you have 3 core heaters. Tripling the number of arallel loads, would result in one third of the circuit's reactance, and herefore three times the total current... x A(3) = Power(3) ripling input power
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Why the relatively short test? That, I know the answer to. Rossi stopped the test because the people observing it asked him to stop it. They wanted to look inside. Also, it was late in the day and they had to go. It was rather difficult to stop, as you see in the data. It is a shame the thing took several hours to turn on. But that is what you have to expect from prototype machines. It turns on a whole lot faster and more reliably than any previous cold fusion device. If it turned out every time, right away, on demand . . . I would suspect it is fake. Defkalion claims that their machines work on demand, fully controlled. I hope that is true. In his blog I think it was, Rossi said that this particular version of the machine can only self-sustain for about six hours, max. if that is true, it was close to the limit after 4 hours. I guess he might have boosted it for a while with input, and then let it run in self-sustaining mode again. The power was fluctuating during the self-sustaining event, but it did seem to be decreasing over time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
It is OK, I understood what you meant. The main thing Rossi needs to figure is how to keep the cores at the operating temperature. I have suggested to him that he should insulate the cores from the heat sink to an engineered degree and I think he has done that. The core heaters need to be in close contact to the cores also insulated properly from the heat sink to allow the best control of heat and temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 4:58 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing By reactance, I misspoke, meaning impedance, but you get the point. If each wafer has its own core heater, the input current would have to triple to support three cells. Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:40:24 -0600 Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com /snip/ Actually, there is no reason to believe that it will require additional input energy to activate the 2 extra cores. He has a COP of 6 when all are used which results in an output of 1558 * 6 = 9348 each ECAT of 107 total. I used the test data to determine that this was entirely in line with the results expected in the driven mode. He did not use 3 for his testthe output of the 1 MW system proved that indirectly. /snip/ If the 3 cells are in parallel, you have 3 core heaters. Tripling the number of parallel loads, would result in one third of the circuit's reactance, and therefore three times the total current... V x A(3) = Power(3) Tripling input power
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
I think you have an excellent understanding of how Mary thinks. I believe that she might even say that she was not convinced that the Wright airplane was self powered, but glided instead since it only flew for a short while and that a wind held it up. In her eyes the motor would have been just to fake us out. I saw something else in the data collected during the October 6 test. To me it was a well rehearsed power up sequence to get the core at the temperature he wanted for a test of the driven mode. My analysis convinces me that he most likely uses this exact same sequence to verify operation of individual cores. The test data was really quite revealing when I viewed it in this manner. Jed, I would have been running for the door during that Feb. test when the device started to go wild. I try to avoid pain as much as possible! It is apparent also, as you say, that he does not have good control of the device. This will not be easy to do since there is a very long delay between application of modified power input and its effect showing up in the output. This is like trying to keep your car going straight down the road when the wheels do not respond for several seconds to the steering. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 4:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is clear to me that Rossi does not want it to be easy to determine. Everyone needs to understand that. He is using misdirection to his advantage. I believe he does use misdirection, but in this case I'm pretty sure he just did not want the thing to get too hot. Even as late as October 6 I think it was he was having problems with control. I say that because the machine refused to turn on. You can see in the data that it starts to produce heat and then abruptly stops, up to 280 min. It works like a cranky internal combustion engine that keeps stalling. During the 18 hour test in February, the machine clearly went out of control. If I had something like that I would not run it as hot as it can go. In this case, running with only one cell enabled produces a clear signal. I do not see any advantage to running all three, if the purpose is to do a convincing demonstration. People were not convinced by 8 kW will not be convinced by 24 kW, or 24 MW for that matter. The duration was also long enough to satisfy any rational demand for proof. Mary Yugo and others keep saying the run was too short even though it was 24 times longer than anyone needs to be sure the effect is real. She sets arbitrary goals, and then whenever Rossi meets one of those goals, she sets another. There is no technical justification for demanding higher power or a longer run. Both are far, far beyond what anyone else has accomplished, and far beyond any rational doubt. There is not the slightest chance the self-sustaining event can be explained with stored heat or chemistry. I suppose if Yugo had watched Wilbur Wright's flight on Sept. 9, 1908 lasting 57 minutes, 31 seconds, she would have said: I will not believe he can really fly until he goes for an hour!!! Then, later that day when he flew for 1 hour 2 minutes, she would say: I will not believe it until he flies for TWO HOURS. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: During the 18 hour test in February, the machine clearly went out of control. If I had something like that I would not run it as hot as it can go. In this case, running with only one cell enabled produces a clear signal. I do not see any advantage to running all three, if the purpose is to do a convincing demonstration. People were not convinced by 8 kW will not be convinced by 24 kW, or 24 MW for that matter. Lewan claimed only 2 - 3 kW, and that was based on unreliable thermocouple placement. From the flow rate of the coolant, it could have been as low as 1 kW. But it's not just the power, it's the energy out vs the energy in, and so more energy out would obviously make it more convincing. The duration was also long enough to satisfy any rational demand for proof. No it wasn't. It wasn't even long enough to satisfy many cold fusion advocates demand for proof. If what you say were true, Rossi's ecat would be on the cover of the NYT. Mary Yugo and others keep saying the run was too short even though it was 24 times longer than anyone needs to be sure the effect is real. No. It was at least 24 times too short for any rational person to be sure the effect is real. She sets arbitrary goals, and then whenever Rossi meets one of those goals, she sets another. No. The goals have not changed, but Rossi's results have fallen further and further from meeting the goals. On the other hand, the advocates keep lowering their standards for Rossi to meet to satisfy their belief, as his ecats get fatter, produce lower power, lower COP, and require greater input. There is no technical justification for demanding higher power or a longer run. Both are far, far beyond what anyone else has accomplished, and far beyond any rational doubt. There is not the slightest chance the self-sustaining event can be explained with stored heat or chemistry. Actually you can accomplish what Rossi does with a fat cat using a portable propane water heater, which weighs 1/5 as much, and requires no warm-up period. So yes, it is easy to conceive of ways to produce his results using stored energy or chemistry, and people have done it all over the internet. I suppose if Yugo had watched Wilbur Wright's flight on Sept. 9, 1908 lasting 57 minutes, 31 seconds, she would have said: I will not believe he can really fly until he goes for an hour!!! Then, later that day when he flew for 1 hour 2 minutes, she would say: I will not believe it until he flies for TWO HOURS. Bad example because at the time, powered flight was not possible by any other method, but of course heating water is possible without nuclear energy. A better example might be to compare the Wrights planes to gliders which were around at the time. So if they launched their plane off a cliff and it stayed aloft for 1/10 as long as a glider, that would not be impressive. And if the Wrights were Rossi, subsequent shows would stay aloft for even less time. (Of course this is hypothetical, since the Wrights could stay aloft for longer than gliders, but this would be a relevant comparison.) The bar has always been the same for Rossi: (1) produce more output energy than input, and (2) have the excess energy be larger than could be produced by storage or chemistry, and preferably more than could be produced by the devices weight in the best chemical fuel. Rossi has never met the first criterion, let alone the second.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:03 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I do not think anyone could say that it is not possible to make a sophisticated scam of an ECAT. Rossi has helped the skeptical among us by allowing this to be the case. Do you honestly think that he is not aware of this possibility? Why 1 core? Why the relatively short test? All of these issues point to a planned attempt to misdirect. He has his reasons and I am not sure that we will ever find out why. So you're arguing that the lack of evidence is proof it works? Like I have said before, his 1 MW system was his real attempt to dazzle us. With what? All anyone got to see was pipes and valves and insulation covered boxes. There was nothing dazzling there. Even the steam was hidden, and the heat was released to the sky *behind* barriers. Without the claimed measurements from Rossi, there was no evidence of heat production at all. He could have at least used the heat to do something like heat the water in a big tanker truck, or expand big cylinder to lift a huge weight. But there was absolutely nothing visual at all. Nothing even remotely dazzling. The skeptics among us have conveniently disregarded the results of this test for their reasons. No they haven't. The results have been regarded carefully. And even if you accept Rossi's measurements, there is still no evidence for nuclear reactions. It will not be long before the truth will come out about Rossi's system. Many of us think it is the real thing. The others should be praying that it is. Again, with the believer's testimony... I guess I should modify my last sentence. Some others hope that the ECAT is a scam, especially those who make a living based upon industries that will be replaced. I doubt it. If the claims were valid, it would be like the industrial revolution, and the standard of living would improve for everyone. People working in competing industries would not have difficulty finding jobs in the cold fusion support industry. In fact conversion to cold fusion would produce a lot of work for a lot of people. I think it is a moral issue to give support to people like Rossi who can really make a large positive impact upon the world. So it is religious with you. So, by people like Rossi do you mean anyone who makes free-energy claims without evidence? Or only Italians with a record? If Rossi is wrong, all the support in the world won't help him. And if he's right, pontificating skeptics on the interweb won't hurt him, and he won't need support from the pions; he just needs one good demo.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Why the relatively short test? That, I know the answer to. Rossi stopped the test because the people observing it asked him to stop it. They wanted to look inside. Also, it was late in the day and they had to go. That's too funny. For want of dinner, the creates discovery in a century was aborted. First, I have not seen evidence that anyone asked him to stop the demo. I think you made it up, but if you have evidence, don't hold back. Second, what's to stop him from doing the pre-heating overnight, and getting started at 7 am. These guys are professionals; they won't mind getting up early. It's true, you might want a witness to measure the input energy, but if it runs long enough to exclude chemical fuel, then storage is excluded too. Then if they ran it self-sustained until 7 pm, you'd have 12 hours. Still too short, but a lot better than 3 1/4 hours. Third, I'm pretty sure you could get people to stay around for a few days, observing in shifts. Surely Rossi has at least one trusted deputy he could leave there when he got his sleep. Fourth, if he had stuck with his smaller ecat, it wouldn't take as long to exclude tricks. Notice that to get longer (public) runs, he had to build a bigger and much heavier ecat. And still it's just a few hours. In his blog I think it was, Rossi said that this particular version of the machine can only self-sustain for about six hours, max. if that is true, it was close to the limit after 4 hours. That's not really self-sustaining then is it. If the thing needed a similar warm-up period every 6 hours, then you're right, running longer wouldn't mean anything. And, if that's the case, then that means Rossi not only *didn't* prove the ecat, but he *couldn't* prove it.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is clear to me that Rossi does not want it to be easy to determine. Everyone needs to understand that. He is using misdirection to his advantage. During the 18 hour test in February, the machine clearly went out of control. If I had something like that I would not run it as hot as it can go. Either that or it had a short-lasting hidden extra source of energy. In this case, running with only one cell enabled produces a clear signal. I do not see any advantage to running all three, if the purpose is to do a convincing demonstration. People were not convinced by 8 kW will not be convinced by 24 kW, or 24 MW for that matter. Would you be convinced by 0.08 milliwatts? The purpose of running a convincing demonstration is to back up your claims. Rossi claims a tabletop fusion reactor that produces typically 10 kW continuously with 1/6 the power input and no fuel charge for 6 months or more. Running for three hours or so at reduced power is not convincing. And that's before you get to all the argument about measuring the enthalpy -- arguments which Rossi could easily squelch and hasn't. The duration was also long enough to satisfy any rational demand for proof. Mary Yugo and others keep saying the run was too short even though it was 24 times longer than anyone needs to be sure the effect is real. She sets arbitrary goals, and then whenever Rossi meets one of those goals, she sets another. There is no technical justification for demanding higher power or a longer run. It's what Rossi claims he can do easily, for cripe's sake! The justification need not go beyond: Rossi said he could do it. Well OK, let's see it then. Both are far, far beyond what anyone else has accomplished, and far beyond any rational doubt. There is not the slightest chance the self-sustaining event can be explained with stored heat or chemistry. I suppose if Yugo had watched Wilbur Wright's flight on Sept. 9, 1908 lasting 57 minutes, 31 seconds, she would have said: I will not believe he can really fly until he goes for an hour!!! Then, later that day when he flew for 1 hour 2 minutes, she would say: I will not believe it until he flies for TWO HOURS. This is another weird analogy. Rossi is no Wright brother. If anything he's more of a Wrong brother (if that's too sarcastic, consider it withdrawn). What Rossi claims isn't the equivalent of a Wright Flyer. It's more like a 747 or an F18. And he can't even prove conclusively that it ever left the ground.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:03 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Some others hope that the ECAT is a scam, especially those who make a living based upon industries that will be replaced. I have no relationship with any industry that wouldn't be helped rather than hindered by the reality of an E-cat. And the latest association of Rossi with Schneider is the last straw that drives me to say I am convinced it's a scam. I can't prove it though. Not yet. If it's a scam, the way Rossi will have brought out the E-cat will be discussed for a long time for it's stupidity and lack of concern for the well-being of the civilization. I think it is a moral issue to give support to people like Rossi who can really make a large positive impact upon the world. Where do you stand? It's a moral issue to stop scammers. If Rossi isn't one, he can prove it ridiculously easily.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
If it's a scam, the way Rossi will have brought out the E-cat will be discussed for a long time for it's stupidity and lack of concern for the well-being of the civilization. Ooops... pressed the button too quickly. If it' NOT a scam, etc. etc. Very sorry for the extra post. Will be more cautious.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
snip...From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Second, what's to stop him from doing the pre-heating overnight, and getting started at 7 am. These guys are professionals; they won't mind getting up early. It's true, you might want a witness to measure the input energy, but if it runs long enough to exclude chemical fuel, then storage is excluded too. Then if they ran it self-sustained until 7 pm, you'd have 12 hours. Still too short, but a lot better than 3 1/4 hours. ... Please explain why it too so long for the temperature to read an elevated value during the October 28 test if the ECATs had been preheated? Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
I believe that he was recommending warming up the E-Cats before most of the reporters show up, with minimal supervision, if their time is too precious. It was not a theory on what may have occurred, merely a suggestion on what could occur to avail a longer (and hence more conclusive) run time. I disagree, but just wanted to clarify. David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: snip...From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Second, what's to stop him from doing the pre-heating overnight, and getting started at 7 am. These guys are professionals; they won't mind getting up early. It's true, you might want a witness to measure the input energy, but if it runs long enough to exclude chemical fuel, then storage is excluded too. Then if they ran it self-sustained until 7 pm, you'd have 12 hours. Still too short, but a lot better than 3 1/4 hours. ... Please explain why it too so long for the temperature to read an elevated value during the October 28 test if the ECATs had been preheated? Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Please explain why it too so long for the temperature to read an elevated value during the October 28 test if the ECATs had been preheated? As noted that was just Cude's suggestion. He did not pre-heat it. The reactor vessel had no water in it when the test began. The first thing they did was take it off the table and weigh it, empty. It was not warm when they did that. If he had actually pre-heated it, the skeptics would all be screaming that he magically stored up the heat in advance. It is better to do the whole test, from start to finish, in the presence of the observers. Anyone who thinks 4 hours of heat after death is insufficient would not be satisfied with 40 hours or 4 years. You can't satisfy irrational people who set every-receding goals with no technical justification. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
I think that they are in fact screaming that it was heated ahead of time. Do you know of any irrational ideas left for the skeptics to suggest? I think they have covered most of themmaybe we should be careful not to give them any ideas. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 10:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Please explain why it too so long for the temperature to read an elevated value during the October 28 test if the ECATs had been preheated? As noted that was just Cude's suggestion. He did not pre-heat it. The reactor vessel had no water in it when the test began. The first thing they did was take it off the table and weigh it, empty. It was not warm when they did that. If he had actually pre-heated it, the skeptics would all be screaming that he magically stored up the heat in advance. It is better to do the whole test, from start to finish, in the presence of the observers. Anyone who thinks 4 hours of heat after death is insufficient would not be satisfied with 40 hours or 4 years. You can't satisfy irrational people who set every-receding goals with no technical justification. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: I believe that he was recommending warming up the E-Cats before most of the reporters show up, with minimal supervision, if their time is too precious. It was not a theory on what may have occurred, merely a suggestion on what could occur to avail a longer (and hence more conclusive) run time. I disagree, but just wanted to clarify. Yes. That's what I meant in this instance. Thanks, sometimes I need to be clarified. But, in some other posts, I *have* suggested that the multi-cat might have had some residual heat from previous runs. There certainly appears to be some, because from time zero in Lewan's spreadsheet, the input water is 15C, and the output is 30C. That may not represent much heat, except we don't know the flow rate during the warm-up period, and the detailed heat transfer time constants.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I think that they are in fact screaming that it was heated ahead of time. But think about it Dave. Even if Rossi has not invented a new source of energy, he has done something just as phenomenal! Rossi has created the perfect insulator! Whatever energy he puts into the device, STAYS IN THE DEVICE. At least, until he decides to unleash it for his deception. Rossi has found a way to heat a fire brick and keep the heat in the brick. All of it! Think of it. We can use Rossi's invention to gather the heat of the sun during the day and release it at night! AND, that will be a lot cheaper than creating some silly source of energy from cold fusion. We can take advantage of the HOT Fusion of the sun at night. If the skeptics are right, we are saved, still! T
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: If the skeptics are right, we are saved, still! And, thank G-d, we did not have to violate any thermodynamic laws. PTL! T
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If he had actually pre-heated it, the skeptics would all be screaming that he magically stored up the heat in advance. Well yes, that would have to be taken in to account. There's nothing magic about storing heat. But there are limits to the storage of heat, and if the output exceeds those limits, which would be automatic, if it exceeded the energy content of an equivalent mass of chemical fuel, then it would still be a useful demo. It is better to do the whole test, from start to finish, in the presence of the observers. Anyone who thinks 4 hours of heat after death is insufficient would not be satisfied with 40 hours or 4 years. That's what I call irrational. We all admit to limits for heat storage. Yours estimate is obviously far lower than the skeptics'. Four hours of heat in the Oct 6 test was the equivalent of a paltry few kg of alcohol, at most, but the ecat weighs 100 kg. But clearly once the energy of a mass of chemical fuel equal to the entire ecat is exceeded, then everyone would have to be satisfied. And that would be reached in a matter of days or weeks, depending on the actual output power (which would have to be measured more carefully). But in a matter of months, even the careful measurement would not be necessary, and if it lasted years, Rossi would be god. You can't satisfy irrational people who set every-receding goals with no technical justification. The goals are very well justified technically, and the only thing receding is Rossi's attempts at meeting them, and the standards his followers demand. The ecats are getting fatter, lower power, and requiring more input. Insisting the opposite is happening doesn't make it true.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: We can use Rossi's invention to gather the heat of the sun during the day and release it at night! Sorry, nature has beat Rossi to it. That already happens. The ground and water absorb heat in the day and release it at night. If that didn't happen we would surely freeze at night. You can ridicule the notion of storing energy if you like. (We have also suggested chemical reactions.) But the fact remains that he puts a lot of energy in during the startup phase. If he can't get more out than he puts in, that's a pretty useless device, magical energy storage or not. In fact if he can't get 4 or 5 times more thermal out than electrical in, then it's no better than a heat pump. No one is claiming heat pumps are going to save the world.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: (We have also suggested chemical reactions.) Is this the royal We? Are you nobility? Is so, I will offer due respect; but, you appear to use a pseudonym, which, BTW, the list owner frowns upon. You could be MaryYugo also for all I know. If so, that's sick! T
[Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
There are only a small handful of what I would fairly term "sceptics" left in the world. The rest who display a clear establishment bias have an agenda to derail and mock legitimate LENR research. MaryYugo as a prime example. Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Date: Fri, November 18, 2011 2:16 pm To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: If the skeptics are right, we are saved, still! And, thank G-d, we did not have to violate any thermodynamic laws. PTL! T
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: There are only a small handful of what I would fairly term sceptics left in the world. The rest who display a clear establishment bias have an agenda to derail and mock legitimate LENR research. MaryYugo as a prime example. I think some people actually fear such a dramatic change to their world view. She's a witch! How do you know she's a witch? She turned me into a newt . . . I got better. Burn her! T
RE: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
Pseudosceptics is a better term to be honest. The ones who dispaly bizarre behaviour. Like how they are obsessed with protecting the financial interests of investers whom they've never met and are overtly concerned with saving us all from investing in controversial and exotic energy technologies.Mentioning Pink Invisible Flying Unicorns and a liberal sprinkling of references to James Randi, Carl Tilley etc etc, blah blah blah... Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Date: Fri, November 18, 2011 2:44 pm To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: There are only a small handful of what I would fairly term "sceptics" left in the world. The rest who display a clear establishment bias have an agenda to derail and mock legitimate LENR research. MaryYugo as a prime example. I think some people actually fear such a dramatic change to their world view. "She's a witch!" "How do you know she's a witch?" "She turned me into a newt . . . I got better." "Burn her!" T
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
As a pragmatic skeptic, playing the essential role in scientific collaboration of offering reason and public shared evidence based critical evaluation and alternative interpretations, I caution as a member of the loyal opposition that the members of the loyal proponents not succumb to the very human temptation to demonize ridicule belittle dismiss exclude those fellows who present opportunities to constantly improve both content and communication about challenging new lines of advance -- remember most attacks falter, fail or become mired, but that motivates finding new and better ways to proceed in exploring the forever complex treasure house of REAL. Willingness to positively practice collaboration among very different points of view and modes of work is key to all human progress, especially now in the instantaneous world Net. How do you reverse being turned into a Newton by that witch Mary Yugo? I don't notweN... On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: Pseudosceptics is a better term to be honest. The ones who dispaly bizarre behaviour. Like how they are obsessed with protecting the financial interests of investers whom they've never met and are overtly concerned with saving us all from investing in controversial and exotic energy technologies. Mentioning Pink Invisible Flying Unicorns and a liberal sprinkling of references to James Randi, Carl Tilley etc etc, blah blah blah... Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Date: Fri, November 18, 2011 2:44 pm To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: There are only a small handful of what I would fairly term sceptics left in the world. The rest who display a clear establishment bias have an agenda to derail and mock legitimate LENR research. MaryYugo as a prime example. I think some people actually fear such a dramatic change to their world view. She's a witch! How do you know she's a witch? She turned me into a newt . . . I got better. Burn her! T
Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: Pseudosceptics is a better term to be honest. The ones who dispaly bizarre behaviour. Like how they are obsessed with protecting the financial interests of investers whom they've never met and are overtly concerned with saving us all from investing in controversial and exotic energy technologies. Mentioning Pink Invisible Flying Unicorns and a liberal sprinkling of references to James Randi, Carl Tilley etc etc, blah blah blah... Yes. I remind people that Carl Tilley was a crook who stole a half million dollars from poor Tennessee farmers. The free energy advocates initially endorsed, promoted and featured his electric car that never needed recharging. He's now a convicted felon for fraud and last I heard was a fugitive with a bench warrant for his arrest. It was local TV reporter skeptics who undid his scam-- not his investors or the believers. Remember when you thought Dennis Lee had beaten the FTC in court? Well, they got the last laugh and the scamming convicted felon was finally shut down by the FTC skeptics and the FBI. He was featured on a Dateline NBC show as the liar that he was. Still support his HHO and car running on water nonsense? You left out Mylow! Remember Mylow? He was the joker who laughed at you while you treated him as if he were a great inventor.Remember how he strung you and Sterling Allan along with his fishing line and electric motor? And how you believed for months that he had a magnetic motor that ran itself? You ranted and raved against pseudosceptics then too. But they were right, were they not? It wasn't you who enhanced the photos that revealed the scam. It was the skeptics. And do you not still support Steorn and still have their information about them available on your web site? What about all their lies and broken promises since 2006? What did Steorn's own hand picked jury say? Why did Steorn not show them any devices ever? What happened when Steorn had a show at the Kinetica Museum? Did they allow Dr. Mike to take a screwdriver to Orbo? Where are their African pumps? Where are their 0.5W/cc power density energy sources? Where's their solid state Orbo kit? Can I buy one? Have they ever sold anything except lame cult club memberships? Do you still support them or do you now recognize that they are scammers? (Documentation for the above is all available from Google or elsewhere. Some of the claims and discussions took place in the now deleted Steorn forum and in comments on Sterling Allan's website. Some are archived by Moletrap members, the internet archives, and various private collections)
