RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
I guess I should follow my own advice. J I had the steel and ceramic cylinders reversed; the SiN ceramic is the *outermost* cylinder. Still, why does he bring up the emissivity of nickel? Obviously he has not read the paper past the abstract or first page. -mark From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Motl is deleting my comment That doesn't surprise me. I too posted a comment. we'll see if he deletes it as well. Here is my post: It is patently obvious that you have NOT read the paper, or only skimmed it due to your *belief* that this is a scam. 1) you state, Emissivity of nickel starts at 0.04 or 0.05 and even black nickel has epsilon below 0.5. The emissivity of Nickel has nothing to do with it. The outer cylinder is steel, not Nickel. So why even mention the emissivity of nickel here? You are either ignorant of the details of the test, or are intentionally misleading people. 2) In addition, the steel cylinder is PAINTED, as was CLEARLY stated in the paper on pg16: Another critical issue of the December test that was dealt with in this trial is the evaluation of the emissivity of the E-Cat HT2's coat of paint. For this purpose, self-adhesive samples were used: white disks of approximately 2 cm in diameter (henceforth: dots) having a known emissivity of 0.95, provided by the same firm that manufactures the IR cameras... These disks are used as CONTROLS to help validate the emissivity values used. I would think that a scientist would at least read the paper CAREFULLY before attempting to criticize it. -- I suppose I could have been a bit more 'diplomatic', but frankly, this 'physicist' doesn't deserve it. He probably works at CERN. -Mark Iverson From: Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:49 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Motl is deleting my comment, lol. Funny Giovanni On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post): I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon (1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating the temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives temperature as a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the setting of the camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating the temperature by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then when you use the reading of 500 K to calculate the power using Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many areas) reintroducing the same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but because the temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is all right and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower limit of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like convection). On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments). Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device, observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency, overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a single thing I wish they had checked but did not. In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees away from the camera is undermeasured (because
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: There's another way to perpetrate the output hoax, and that's to secrete infrared lasers in the ceiling and heat the device up remotely. Lasers?! Don't you think that seems just a little farfetched? And it raises, once again, as do many of the proposed ways the tests could have been rigged, the question of why go to so much trouble? OK, let's say it's all a hoax ... how much longer can the hoax continue? I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting harder to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax in science history and would require a lot of people to keep it going and they'd have to keep quiet. Given that you can't get four people to agree on how to split a lunch bill, a conspiracy seems unlikely and Rossi as the sole perpetrator seems just as improbable. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Geller had collaborators. Did you ever hear about them? - I doubt it. Look, there's big money involved here. We are human. Do I really need to state the obvious? We are better served by eliminating possible hoaxes by deductive reasoning than we are by closing our eyes tight and wishing for Utopia. What's not right is to a priori refuse to discuss the possibility of a hoax. In my view that's simply infantile. Andrew - Original Message - From: Mark Gibbs To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: There's another way to perpetrate the output hoax, and that's to secrete infrared lasers in the ceiling and heat the device up remotely. Lasers?! Don't you think that seems just a little farfetched? And it raises, once again, as do many of the proposed ways the tests could have been rigged, the question of why go to so much trouble? OK, let's say it's all a hoax ... how much longer can the hoax continue? I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting harder to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax in science history and would require a lot of people to keep it going and they'd have to keep quiet. Given that you can't get four people to agree on how to split a lunch bill, a conspiracy seems unlikely and Rossi as the sole perpetrator seems just as improbable. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply box. You might think that this immediately eliminates the battery hoax theory, but it turns out that the power measuring equipment would be insensitive to anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could certainly be snuck in there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter notes, to using frequencies other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to the device. I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe it (let alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in a metal box of independent design to foil output hoaxing, and run for weeks on end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the controls stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him. Best, Andrew Palfreyman - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - just recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; you don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a jaundiced eye. Rossi is not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be prepared to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly crabby sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be distasteful to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here, and we are all grown-ups. Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long resistors could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle as the lasers, but just a different frequency. And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of all. Just ask Geller and Taylor. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's small. A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with additional power. What sort of internal power source? A generator? That would noisy and obvious. A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right. A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 W. They would see it. Do you have anything else in mind? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world. Andrew, infrared lasers? Really. Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would create spot heating of the test device. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Whew. The paper which started this conversation indicates the scientists involved and their academic affiliation. I would like to caution some people, you know who you are, that this particular list, Vortex-l is widely read. Further caution, I have seen many statements which could be considered libelous. If you wish to speculate, be sure to include the phrase in my opinion. While it will only provide a modicum of protection if these individuals and their institutions are incensed by these statements, it at least, does allow you to plead ignorance.
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
You probably mean me. Everything I say is my own private opinion and I do not represent any other persons or organisations or institutions, nor am I affiliated with such. I am an engineer with a physics degree and am currently unemployed. Were I acting per pro others, I would have made that clear. What do you think of my hoax theories? Andrew - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Whew. The paper which started this conversation indicates the scientists involved and their academic affiliation. I would like to caution some people, you know who you are, that this particular list, Vortex-l is widely read. Further caution, I have seen many statements which could be considered libelous. If you wish to speculate, be sure to include the phrase in my opinion. While it will only provide a modicum of protection if these individuals and their institutions are incensed by these statements, it at least, does allow you to plead ignorance.
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
What do you think of my hoax theories? Well, when I look for a hoax, I also ask myself Where is the benefit?
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Personally, I would avoid any implication that these scientists nor their institutions are implicit in a hoax. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: What do you think of my hoax theories? Well, when I look for a hoax, I also ask myself Where is the benefit?
RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Andrew, This isn't about believe or disbelieve. black or white. Any good scientist uses a 'sliding scale', and as more data comes in, that scale is adjusted as to whether a given phenomenon or claim has gained in credibility, or diminished. For me, this test has pushed that sliding scale a little further to the credible scale. that's all. Time will sort this out, and I don't think we'll have to wait too much longer. RE: your comments about possible input power trickery. I believe they determined that the power consumed by the Control Box was (on pg 18): From this one derives that the power consumption of the control box was approximately = 110-120 W. This was done during the 'dummy' test. In addition, they ran the control box CONTINUOUSLY during the dummy test, not with the 65/35 (Off/ON) duty cycle used in loaded reactor runs. THUS, the power consumption of the control box during those runs was likely 1/3 the above estimates. In fact, the 'conservative' estimates they used in the fueled reactor runs did NOT subtract out the control box power, meaning they assumed ALL electrical power measured at the wall plug went into the reactor, and none into the control box. That is the most conservative way to do the calcs as far as the input power is concerned. PS: I remember your last name from the days of sci.physics.fusion, and all the activity on that forum starting with PF's 1989 announcement. I think I still have some printouts of some of the discussions. -Mark From: Andrew [mailto:andrew...@att.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:53 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently -verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently- verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply box. You might think that this immediately eliminates the battery hoax theory, but it turns out that the power measuring equipment would be insensitive to anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could certainly be snuck in there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter notes, to using frequencies other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to the device. I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe it (let alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in a metal box of independent design to foil output hoaxing, and run for weeks on end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the controls stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him. Best, Andrew Palfreyman - Original Message - From: Andrew mailto:andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - just recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; you don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a jaundiced eye. Rossi is not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be prepared to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly crabby sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be distasteful to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here, and we are all grown-ups. Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long resistors could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle as the lasers, but just a different frequency. And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of all. Just ask Geller and Taylor. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew mailto:andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's small. A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with additional
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
The thing about a successful hoax, Terry, is that it is the investigating scientists who are fooled. Nobody is suggesting the sort of grand conspiracy you mention. Unfortunately, the door is left wide open for speculations of bamboozlement, because precautions against them are not discussed in the paper. It would have behoved the august scientists of Sweden and Italy to have closed the door on such possibilities, both in terms of convincing themselves, and proclaiming such explicitly in their paper. Perhaps good taste forbad them from appearing to be exercising bad manners towards their host and his apparatus. Or perhaps the possibility that they were being taken for a ride simply did not occur to them at a level of sophistication sufficient to warrant closer inspection. We cannot know unless we interview them personally. I note your temerity about this topic. Andrew - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Personally, I would avoid any implication that these scientists nor their institutions are implicit in a hoax. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: What do you think of my hoax theories? Well, when I look for a hoax, I also ask myself Where is the benefit?
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: The thing about a successful hoax, Terry, is that it is the investigating scientists who are fooled. Nobody is suggesting the sort of grand conspiracy You might not be, but others are. I understand your point about fooling scientists; however, I would refrain from such speculation without evidence. Advice. Take or leave it.
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of all. Just ask Geller and Taylor. I have corresponded with Randi. He does not understand the first thing about cold fusion or experimental science. He has no idea how anyone could pull of a hoax of this nature, any more than Yugo does. This is not case of fooling people. You have to fool instruments and video cameras. I am sick of hearing about Geller. He fooled scientists when he did a sleight of hand trick. That was him doing his own business -- stage magic. Not an experiment, and not something that scientists would know anything about. They have no training in this. They did not use instruments. As I have said before, finding experimental errors is FAR more difficult than finding deliberate fraud. There is no method of fraud one-tenth as subtle as the problems Mother Nature throws at you in an experiment. These researchers have spent a lifetime teasing out experimental errors. The people who make power analyzers have dealt with every possible waveform and condition. They know what electricity can and cannot do. Rossi has not discovered some condition that the instrument manufacturers never seen in the last 140 years. Everything that can go wrong with electric power has gone wrong. The instruments are designed to find problems. That is what they are for. The professors do not have to think about this any more than they have to think about emissivity. They just fill in the data on the screen and confirm that the computed temperature matches the thermocouple reading. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
This is good to know. Can you specifically talk about the clamp-on ammeter probes and their frequency response? What is your understanding here? For example, if there exists a HF power component, could it be missed by using these clamp-on probes? I have to ask these questions because the paper does not address them. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of all. Just ask Geller and Taylor. I have corresponded with Randi. He does not understand the first thing about cold fusion or experimental science. He has no idea how anyone could pull of a hoax of this nature, any more than Yugo does. This is not case of fooling people. You have to fool instruments and video cameras. I am sick of hearing about Geller. He fooled scientists when he did a sleight of hand trick. That was him doing his own business -- stage magic. Not an experiment, and not something that scientists would know anything about. They have no training in this. They did not use instruments. As I have said before, finding experimental errors is FAR more difficult than finding deliberate fraud. There is no method of fraud one-tenth as subtle as the problems Mother Nature throws at you in an experiment. These researchers have spent a lifetime teasing out experimental errors. The people who make power analyzers have dealt with every possible waveform and condition. They know what electricity can and cannot do. Rossi has not discovered some condition that the instrument manufacturers never seen in the last 140 years. Everything that can go wrong with electric power has gone wrong. The instruments are designed to find problems. That is what they are for. The professors do not have to think about this any more than they have to think about emissivity. They just fill in the data on the screen and confirm that the computed temperature matches the thermocouple reading. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Andrew, I would be very surprised to find that these highly educated and qualified scientists would fall for a power input trick. They had many days to uncover anything of that nature. Has anyone checked into the specifications of the instruments used by them to see if this were even the least bit likely? It would be great if some of these scientists would join the discussion and set aside your concerns. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply box. You might think that this immediately eliminates the battery hoax theory, but it turns out that the power measuring equipment would be insensitive to anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could certainly be snuck in there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter notes, to using frequencies other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to the device. I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe it (let alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in a metal box of independent design to foil output hoaxing, and run for weeks on end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the controls stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him. Best, Andrew Palfreyman - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - just recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; you don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a jaundiced eye. Rossi is not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be prepared to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly crabby sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be distasteful to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here, and we are all grown-ups. Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long resistors could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle as the lasers, but just a different frequency. And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of all. Just ask Geller and Taylor. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's small. A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with additional power. What sort of internal power source? A generator? That would noisy and obvious. A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right. A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 W. They would see it. Do you have anything else in mind? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world. Andrew, infrared lasers? Really. Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would create spot heating of the test device. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Dave, That would be great if they joined in. It's not that I think there was foul play so much as, going by what's been written in the paper, there's nothing to suggest that they guarded against it. So, for example, there's no frequency spectrum published on the input power feed. The paper raises more questions than answers. Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it. Best, Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew, I would be very surprised to find that these highly educated and qualified scientists would fall for a power input trick. They had many days to uncover anything of that nature. Has anyone checked into the specifications of the instruments used by them to see if this were even the least bit likely? It would be great if some of these scientists would join the discussion and set aside your concerns. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply box. You might think that this immediately eliminates the battery hoax theory, but it turns out that the power measuring equipment would be insensitive to anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could certainly be snuck in there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter notes, to using frequencies other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to the device. I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe it (let alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in a metal box of independent design to foil output hoaxing, and run for weeks on end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the controls stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him. Best, Andrew Palfreyman - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - just recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; you don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a jaundiced eye. Rossi is not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be prepared to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly crabby sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be distasteful to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here, and we are all grown-ups. Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long resistors could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle as the lasers, but just a different frequency. And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of all. Just ask Geller and Taylor. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's small. A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with additional power. What sort of internal power source? A generator? That would noisy and obvious. A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right. A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 W. They would see it. Do you have anything else in mind? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it. I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant. They measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form generator. Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire system. It does not matter what the power supplies did. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** This is good to know. Can you specifically talk about the clamp-on ammeter probes and their frequency response? No, I do not know enough about that to comment. I will leave that to others. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world. Andrew, infrared lasers? Really. Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would create spot heating of the test device. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority of the power is being pumped at 200 Hz (arbitrary numbers), and the probes are 40 dB down at 200 Hz Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it. I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant. They measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form generator. Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire system. It does not matter what the power supplies did. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), Not at all. but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority . . . I suggest you read the paper and find out if it has enough information to eliminate this possibility. If it does not, write a paper describing a potential problem. Send it to the authors, and see if they checked for the problem. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Andrew, Don't you think that it would be unusual for them to specifically mention that they carefully inspected the waveforms to ensure that there was no fraud attempt? The assumption is that Rossi and others are not trying to influence the test. They discussed the power measured and had they found a problem I am sure it would have been mentioned. It would be more productive for you to look up the specifications for the instrumentation used for the test and to see if you find that they are not accurate when RF or DC is sent through them. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Dave, That would be great if they joined in. It's not that I think there was foul play so much as, going by what's been written in the paper, there's nothing to suggest that they guarded against it. So, for example, there's no frequency spectrum published on the input power feed. The paper raises more questions than answers. Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it. Best, Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew, I would be very surprised to find that these highly educated and qualified scientists would fall for a power input trick. They had many days to uncover anything of that nature. Has anyone checked into the specifications of the instruments used by them to see if this were even the least bit likely? It would be great if some of these scientists would join the discussion and set aside your concerns. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply box. You might think that this immediately eliminates the battery hoax theory, but it turns out that the power measuring equipment would be insensitive to anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could certainly be snuck in there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter notes, to using frequencies other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to the device. I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe it (let alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in a metal box of independent design to foil output hoaxing, and run for weeks on end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the controls stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him. Best, Andrew Palfreyman - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - just recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; you don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a jaundiced eye. Rossi is not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be prepared to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly crabby sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be distasteful to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here, and we are all grown-ups. Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long resistors could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle as the lasers, but just a different frequency. And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of all. Just ask Geller and Taylor. Andrew - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's small. A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
I think you're right. Would you be interested in their response? I have said several times that I've read the paper. Nevertheless, it seems time for another reading. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), Not at all. but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority . . . I suggest you read the paper and find out if it has enough information to eliminate this possibility. If it does not, write a paper describing a potential problem. Send it to the authors, and see if they checked for the problem. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers. Can you imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path radiation caused serious injuries? This is far outside the realm of reality. The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be set aside with the proper scrutiny. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world. Andrew, infrared lasers? Really. Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would create spot heating of the test device. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** I think you're right. Would you be interested in their response? Of course. I am sure we would all be interested. I have said several times that I've read the paper. Nevertheless, it seems time for another reading. I find I must read a paper like this several time, and I have to look up concepts I am unfamiliar with. It sure is easier to do that than it was before we had the Internet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
The remaining output hoax possibility is beamed RF into the antenna resistors. Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the waveform generator - that's off limits. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers. Can you imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path radiation caused serious injuries? This is far outside the realm of reality. The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be set aside with the proper scrutiny. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world. Andrew, infrared lasers? Really. Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would create spot heating of the test device. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
I agree with Jed's advice Andrew. This is an important issue which perhaps you should pursue. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), Not at all. but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority . . . I suggest you read the paper and find out if it has enough information to eliminate this possibility. If it does not, write a paper describing a potential problem. Send it to the authors, and see if they checked for the problem. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
It would be really cool if the lasers are mounted on sharks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw Harry On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers. Can you imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path radiation caused serious injuries? This is far outside the realm of reality. The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be set aside with the proper scrutiny. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world. Andrew, infrared lasers? Really. Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would create spot heating of the test device. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
I'm not getting anything like the buzz I experienced in 1989 on sci.physics.fusion, I must say. I suspect it's because I'm older! Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: I think you're right. Would you be interested in their response? Of course. I am sure we would all be interested. I have said several times that I've read the paper. Nevertheless, it seems time for another reading. I find I must read a paper like this several time, and I have to look up concepts I am unfamiliar with. It sure is easier to do that than it was before we had the Internet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
The ECAT is made of metal if I recall correctly which would not allow RF to penetrate to activate the resistor antennas. Some might be able to follow the wiring into the device, but the level would have to be quite large which would most likely demolish the instrument readings. Andrew, are you approaching this from the point of view of a skeptic that absolutely does not believe that the ECAT works? If so, I can understand why you are stretching so far. Could you be convinced that Rossi actually has a working device? Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem The remaining output hoax possibility is beamed RF into the antenna resistors. Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the waveform generator - that's off limits. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers. Can you imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path radiation caused serious injuries? This is far outside the realm of reality. The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be set aside with the proper scrutiny. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world. Andrew, infrared lasers? Really. Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would create spot heating of the test device. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
But that would mean another device, a circuit, which modified the input when they compared with the empty reactor. 2013/5/21 Andrew andrew...@att.net ** I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority of the power is being pumped at 200 Hz (arbitrary numbers), and the probes are 40 dB down at 200 Hz Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:25 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it. I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant. They measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form generator. Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire system. It does not matter what the power supplies did. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Dave, Good call on the metal screening. I'll tell Harry to call off the mutant and ill-tempered sea bass :) I started out this morning very gung-ho about it all, and as the day has progressed, and I read more peripheral material, I ended up with more open questions than answers. I think of myself as open-minded but strongly analytic too. I have been running with the Woodward crowd for over 15 years, and if that isn't fringe and speculative physics, I don't know what is. I couldn't put a number on how convinced I am. It's not 0% and neither is it 100%. Let's say I'm 50/50 for now. The fence is uncomfortable, but at least a path to the resolution of open issues appears to exist. I can't say fairer than that. If I have an agenda, I'd describe it as the fervent desire for this thing to work! Best, Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem The ECAT is made of metal if I recall correctly which would not allow RF to penetrate to activate the resistor antennas. Some might be able to follow the wiring into the device, but the level would have to be quite large which would most likely demolish the instrument readings. Andrew, are you approaching this from the point of view of a skeptic that absolutely does not believe that the ECAT works? If so, I can understand why you are stretching so far. Could you be convinced that Rossi actually has a working device? Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem The remaining output hoax possibility is beamed RF into the antenna resistors. Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the waveform generator - that's off limits. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers. Can you imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path radiation caused serious injuries? This is far outside the realm of reality. The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be set aside with the proper scrutiny. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world. Andrew, infrared lasers? Really. Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would create spot heating of the test device. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Daniel, I'm misunderstanding this reference of yours to the control with the empty reactor. If there's a gizmo, then I assume it's either in the power supply or the waveform generator. I suspect you're making a serious point that I'm missing here. Andrew - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem But that would mean another device, a circuit, which modified the input when they compared with the empty reactor. 2013/5/21 Andrew andrew...@att.net I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority of the power is being pumped at 200 Hz (arbitrary numbers), and the probes are 40 dB down at 200 Hz Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it. I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant. They measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form generator. Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire system. It does not matter what the power supplies did. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
They tested a dummy device, that is, an empty reactor, which showed a supposedly correct IR emission. The input was the same. 2013/5/21 Andrew andrew...@att.net ** Daniel, I'm misunderstanding this reference of yours to the control with the empty reactor. If there's a gizmo, then I assume it's either in the power supply or the waveform generator. I suspect you're making a serious point that I'm missing here. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:02 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem But that would mean another device, a circuit, which modified the input when they compared with the empty reactor. 2013/5/21 Andrew andrew...@att.net ** I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority of the power is being pumped at 200 Hz (arbitrary numbers), and the probes are 40 dB down at 200 Hz Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:25 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it. I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant. They measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form generator. Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire system. It does not matter what the power supplies did. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Andrew, That is all that anyone can ask of you. Keep an open mind and hopefully you will eventually find the truth. It appears that there will always be questions to answer and it is good to resolve as many as possible. The scientists that performed these experiments are high caliber and would most likely want to be extremely careful about any announcements of this magnitude. Put yourself in their shoes and you might find that you hesitate to deliver news that would ruin your reputation if shown false. I have faith in their ability and have also been following Rossi for a couple of years. During this time I have seen him make statements that fall into place when measured against a model that I constructed earlier to understand how a device that generates a lot of heat can be controlled by much less heat. Initially, I thought that this could not be true, but my model convinces me otherwise. It is in our collective best interest to get this right and you can be confident that there are many following this list that will ensure that any tricks are uncovered as soon as possible. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 10:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Dave, Good call on the metal screening. I'll tell Harry to call off the mutant and ill-tempered sea bass :) I started out this morning very gung-ho about it all, and as the day has progressed, and I read more peripheral material, I ended up with more open questions than answers. I think of myself as open-minded but strongly analytic too. I have been running with the Woodward crowd for over 15 years, and if that isn't fringe and speculative physics, I don't know what is. I couldn't put a number on how convinced I am. It's not 0% and neither is it 100%. Let's say I'm 50/50 for now. The fence is uncomfortable, but at least a path to the resolution of open issues appears to exist. I can't say fairer than that. If I have an agenda, I'd describe it as the fervent desire for this thing to work! Best, Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem The ECAT is made of metal if I recall correctly which would not allow RF to penetrate to activate the resistor antennas. Some might be able to follow the wiring into the device, but the level would have to be quite large which would most likely demolish the instrument readings. Andrew, are you approaching this from the point of view of a skeptic that absolutely does not believe that the ECAT works? If so, I can understand why you are stretching so far. Could you be convinced that Rossi actually has a working device? Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem The remaining output hoax possibility is beamed RF into the antenna resistors. Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the waveform generator - that's off limits. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers. Can you imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path radiation caused serious injuries? This is far outside the realm of reality. The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be set aside with the proper scrutiny. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Two things that confuse me about the two tests. First, they both utilized completely different power sources that were supposedly part of his trade secret. the supply during the first test was a three phase supply but the second one was a single phase output supply. Is it practical that for the power to be so critical to this device for him to be able to switch power inputs so easily or is the power not important and this is just Rossi trying to distract folks from the real magic in his system? Second, Rossi is incredibly paranoid and for good reason i might add, so was their something the first test showed that he was concerned about which caused him to 'paint' the second ecat to hide something? I'm hypothesizing that the uneven paint job was an afterthought to hide something and not prepared purposefully like that. Also why did he agree to the test now? Is he comfortable enough in his progress in the design and with his partners now that he is willing to begin sharing with others or is it some form of misdirection play on his part? Also I always enjoyed reading Dr. Kim's papers on lenr and i think these tests make some of those theories less plausible, however would love to read his comments on the tests. i don't believe he has ever posted on here. Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: The remaining output hoax possibility is beamed RF into the antenna resistors. Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the waveform generator - that's off limits. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers. Can you imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path radiation caused serious injuries? This is far outside the realm of reality. The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be set aside with the proper scrutiny. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world. Andrew, infrared lasers? Really. Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would create spot heating of the test device. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:07:19 PM Dave, Good call on the metal screening. I'll tell Harry to call off the mutant and ill-tempered sea bass :) I started out this morning very gung-ho about it all, and as the day has progressed, and I read more peripheral material, I ended up with more open questions than answers. I think of myself as open-minded but strongly analytic too. I couldn't put a number on how convinced I am. It's not 0% and neither is it 100%. Let's say I'm 50/50 for now. The fence is uncomfortable, but at least a path to the resolution of open issues appears to exist. I can't say fairer than that. If I have an agenda, I'd describe it as the fervent desire for this thing to work! Best, Andrew Although it would be wonderful if every experiment checked for everything, but in the series of tests (or demonstrations as the wiki police call them), almost every possible fake has been checked in at least ONE experiment. So in a sense the elimination of fakes is cumulative. In the very first test they weren't allowed to look into the control bx. In later tests they were, and no we seem to be back to secret. (They should at least have measured and/or weighed it). For another example, look at my experiment/equipment table : http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_eai_table_v4.php In the April 19 test they DID check for RF : Bianchini checked for electromagnetic fields from 5 Hz to 3 GHz. With the exception of two cases, the testers were allowed and encouraged to bring their own equipment, or they were free to borrow Rossi's, and to do a basic calibration. (eg weighing the fat-cat they used a bathroom scale, and checked it by having two people check their weights. Probably good enough to 10 / 180 lbs, and establishes that it's moving freely) The two excepted cases are : a) No SPECTRAL radiation detectors b) For the heat-exchanger test Rossi pre-fixed the thermocouples and didn't allow testers to bring their own. (A fatal error to that experiment --- and with the plumber and his toolbag -- which Krivit scorned -- could have been done in half an hour). So for any particular test Rossi has to guess WHICH fake he can use. My gosh -- they're sweeping for RF fields, so I'll have to turn THAT off. Just as well I've still got the spot laser rigged up! ... Oh dear, they're going to measure the current on ALL the leads, so I've got to us the etc etc.
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
From: Joe Hughes jhughe...@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:45:55 PM Two things that confuse me about the two tests. Second, Rossi is incredibly paranoid and for good reason i might add, so was their something the first test showed that he was concerned about which caused him to 'paint' the second ecat to hide something? I'm hypothesizing that the uneven paint job was an afterthought to hide something and not prepared purposefully like that. He knew in advance that they were going to do radiometric calorimetry, and he knew what temperature range they were going to use. So he painted it with an appropriate substance to have a high emitivity (or whatever). The first four tests-- two described by Penon, plus the November and December tests -- were all high temperature, so they were all painted the same.
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Joe, As time advances Rossi is improving his design. He has made marvelous progress during the last couple of years and I hope that we can convince him to begin production of a useful device soon. It is reasonable to assume that the drive system can be of a single phase which is less complicated to implement than a three phase one. He may have determined that it will be easier to supply the drive requirements for a number of connected modules in this new configuration and that might be the reason for the change. We will have to wait for that information. I suspect that the final system that holds Rossi's ECATs will have a coolant flowing to remove the internally generated heat instead of radiating it as for this test. A coating may not be required for the normal operation but must be used for this test to keep operation within reasonable limits. His decision to allow this test no doubt forces him to do things that he does not do in the final product. An example would be the temperature of the outer surface which will be held to around 300 C in his system but in this test is much hotter. This temperature variation will have a large impact upon stable operation with drive further complicating these tests. It is about time for him to allow the third party testing! The good news is that this suggests that he feels that his design is close to final. Dave -Original Message- From: Joe Hughes jhughe...@comcast.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 10:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Two things that confuse me about the two tests. First, they both utilized completely different power sources that were supposedly part of his trade secret. the supply during the first test was a three phase supply but the second one was a single phase output supply. Is it practical that for the power to be so critical to this device for him to be able to switch power inputs so easily or is the power not important and this is just Rossi trying to distract folks from the real magic in his system? Second, Rossi is incredibly paranoid and for good reason i might add, so was their something the first test showed that he was concerned about which caused him to 'paint' the second ecat to hide something? I'm hypothesizing that the uneven paint job was an afterthought to hide something and not prepared purposefully like that. Also why did he agree to the test now? Is he comfortable enough in his progress in the design and with his partners now that he is willing to begin sharing with others or is it some form of misdirection play on his part? Also I always enjoyed reading Dr. Kim's papers on lenr and i think these tests make some of those theories less plausible, however would love to read his comments on the tests. i don't believe he has ever posted on here. Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: The remaining output hoax possibility is beamed RF into the antenna resistors. Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the waveform generator - that's off limits. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers. Can you imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path radiation caused serious injuries? This is far outside the realm of reality. The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be set aside with the proper scrutiny. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world. Andrew, infrared lasers? Really. Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would create spot heating of the test
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting harder to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax in science history and would require a lot of people to keep it going and they'd have to keep quiet. Putting my lateral thinking cap on, I see these four possibilities: 1. Rossi and the third-party testers are in cahoots, and we have been punked. 2. Rossi, like the Amazing Randi, has pulled off a fantastic magic trick and fooled everyone, including the authors of the recent paper. 3. Rossi and all involved in the testing are unqualified, and what was seen was powered solely by the input power, resulting in a COP 1, and the observations and conclusions were inaccurate and flawed. 4. Rossi is operating something that probably has at least ~2.6+ COP. Anyone care to attempt to calculate the conditional probabilities of each of these four scenarios, given that we know the affiliations of the people involved in the testing? For the lateral thinkers out there -- is there a fifth or sixth possibility that has not been mentioned? It seems to me that (1) is vanishingly small, and (2) and (3) seem far-fetched, although not as much as (1). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
If we're going all Bayesian on this, we'd need to calculate some priors. It's my impression that generally speaking it's not easy to bribe a high-ranking scientist, and not easy to bribe Swedish people, so as far as bribing a high-ranking Swedish scientist, I'm going to say not very likely :). That takes care of #1. Rossi did not have a direct hand in this testing, but indirectly he did, via his pal Professor Levi, who was on-site at Rossi's facility where the testing was performed. There were some off-limit constraints on the operation of the tests. What precisely these were is not entirely clear. So #2 should read Rossi and close associates really. #3 is ridiculous I think. I don't see much evidence of incompetency in general. #5 might be Aliens/The Illuminati/The Secret Government made him do it but I didn't say that. And never would, actually. I think it's between #2 (modified) and #4. Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting harder to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax in science history and would require a lot of people to keep it going and they'd have to keep quiet. Putting my lateral thinking cap on, I see these four possibilities: 1.. Rossi and the third-party testers are in cahoots, and we have been punked. 2.. Rossi, like the Amazing Randi, has pulled off a fantastic magic trick and fooled everyone, including the authors of the recent paper. 3.. Rossi and all involved in the testing are unqualified, and what was seen was powered solely by the input power, resulting in a COP 1, and the observations and conclusions were inaccurate and flawed. 4.. Rossi is operating something that probably has at least ~2.6+ COP. Anyone care to attempt to calculate the conditional probabilities of each of these four scenarios, given that we know the affiliations of the people involved in the testing? For the lateral thinkers out there -- is there a fifth or sixth possibility that has not been mentioned? It seems to me that (1) is vanishingly small, and (2) and (3) seem far-fetched, although not as much as (1). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Joe Hughes said: Also I always enjoyed reading Dr. Kim's papers on lenr and i think these tests make some of those theories less plausible, Axil asks: What are your reasons for thinking this way? On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Joe Hughes jhughe...@comcast.net wrote: Two things that confuse me about the two tests. First, they both utilized completely different power sources that were supposedly part of his trade secret. the supply during the first test was a three phase supply but the second one was a single phase output supply. Is it practical that for the power to be so critical to this device for him to be able to switch power inputs so easily or is the power not important and this is just Rossi trying to distract folks from the real magic in his system? Second, Rossi is incredibly paranoid and for good reason i might add, so was their something the first test showed that he was concerned about which caused him to 'paint' the second ecat to hide something? I'm hypothesizing that the uneven paint job was an afterthought to hide something and not prepared purposefully like that. Also why did he agree to the test now? Is he comfortable enough in his progress in the design and with his partners now that he is willing to begin sharing with others or is it some form of misdirection play on his part? Also I always enjoyed reading Dr. Kim's papers on lenr and i think these tests make some of those theories less plausible, however would love to read his comments on the tests. i don't believe he has ever posted on here. Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: The remaining output hoax possibility is beamed RF into the antenna resistors. Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the waveform generator - that's off limits. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers. Can you imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path radiation caused serious injuries? This is far outside the realm of reality. The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be set aside with the proper scrutiny. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world. Andrew, infrared lasers? Really. Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would create spot heating of the test device. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:34:42 PM If we're going all Bayesian on this, we'd need to calculate some priors. It's my impression that generally speaking it's not easy to bribe a high-ranking scientist, and not easy to bribe Swedish people, so as far as bribing a high-ranking Swedish scientist, I'm going to say not very likely :). That takes care of #1. You wants your Bayesian, we got 'em : http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: The following argument is complete nonsense and stops me from reading the full article. No one, unless writing a book that requires complex mathematical notation is so foul to use TeX instead of LaTeX. If one does it means that he spends more time studying TeX than doing his homework. This is a (even if fundamental) report not a mathematical essay so using a wysiwyg word processor suffice. I think this argument is a good one. It suggests that the authors have not prepared the paper for submission to a physics journal; or, that, at any rate, it is not far along in the process. 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. Eric
[Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a single thing I wish they had checked but did not. In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into account. Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure there was no hanky-panky. They wrote: The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements themselves. They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of chemistry by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the first test, they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting point, rather than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the reactant. In the second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g but they round that up to 1 g. They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat decay curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat does not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat producing reaction in addition to the electric heater. I like it! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
I agree Jed. They did this the right way and it will be difficult for anyone to prove otherwise. You mention the cooling time shape not being that associated with normal processes which agrees with the model that I constructed earlier. In an ideal world with a very high COP the cooling curve would hesitate at the maximum temperature point for a relatively long time before beginning its decline. The trick is to come close to a zero slope at the initial point but ensure that the curve is always falling after the heating resistance is un powered. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 20, 2013 10:10 pm Subject: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a single thing I wish they had checked but did not. In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into account. Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure there was no hanky-panky. They wrote: The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements themselves. They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of chemistry by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the first test, they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting point, rather than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the reactant. In the second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g but they round that up to 1 g. They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat decay curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat does not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat producing reaction in addition to the electric heater. I like it! - Jed
