Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

I have never heard of mechanical work from temperatures below 100 deg C.
>

I recall reading on this list at one point that a Stirling engine could do
something along these lines.  There is this post, which says something
similar [1], and this little blurb as well [2].

Eric


[2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg25105.html
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_the_Stirling_engine#Low_temperature_difference_engines

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[DJ Cravens]

Sarcasm has no place in science.  To me it is just telling a lie and laughing 
about it.  
 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:02:11 -0400


OK, I guess it was not clear to me what you were pointing out.  It had the 
sound of sarcasm...my bad.

 

Dave





-Original Message-

From: DJ Cravens 

To: vortex-l 

Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 12:33 pm

Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...













that is why I said: "if your process requires electrical input you must have a 
high COP.  for a real world device when you have to also make electrical 
conversion, fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such. "

 

You may want to re read my post. 

 

But also realize that Ecats are just one of many paths in the area of "CF".

 

D2

 


To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

From: dlrober...@aol.com

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:17:10 -0400





Dennis, please look at the many descriptions that have been written about why 
the COP must be beyond a certain level to supply itself without having 
problems.  A COP of 2 to 1 could not make enough electricity to supply the 
drive by any means.



 



Electronic control required electrical energy and that must be available for 
stable operation of the device.



 



Dave











-Original Message-


From: DJ Cravens 


To: vortex-l 


Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:58 am


Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...


















must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical 
input you must have a high COP.  The conversion from heat back into electrical 
power places restrictions on you ability to make it self sustaining.  IF you 
can get heat out at around 300C you theoretically could self sustain at 
somewhere just over 2:1 but that would require closely matching the conversion 
device and the rate of heat extraction.  





When you down in the sub 100C range (where I always seem to end up) for 
extraction, then you have to be at over 5:1 if you are perfect and more like 10 
to 1 for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, 
fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such.  


 


Also, you have to have a way to balance heat extraction rates with keeping the 
unit above its desired working temperature.  You just about have to have a 
variable heat conductive path of some kind. 


 


[ a few here might be interested- I am presently trying to make a variable heat 
path device using a concentric tube around a heat pipe with a ferro fluid 
between- but then I am a much lower COP ]


 




To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...


From: dlrober...@aol.com


Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:46:26 -0400





Wrong again Cude.  No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without 
connection to the power mains.  Read what Rossi has written.  His definition of 
SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly 
cooling off but generating internal heat.  Controlled cooling has not been 
proven to work yet and may not work with the present design.












Dave














-Original Message-



From: Joshua Cude 



To: vortex-l 



Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:06 am



Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...




















On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:






























 








I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high 
wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs.



























That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to 
melt, or explode, so it is not an option. 




































That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were 
used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary 
temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 
reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. 
And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to 
make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical 
power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that 
produced the electricity to begin with.







































 




























  














  









  

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

DJ Cravens  wrote:


> Peltiers give you direct heat > electrical but you are lucky to get 5% in
> the real world on those and that would mean a COP of 20 for a self
> sustaining thing.
>

I believe that is 5% with high heat, such as the exhaust pipe of a truck.



> Jed- do you know who/what is the demo listed for ICCF Monday evening?
>

No idea! I have been asking everyone I know to put on a demo.

I have also been asking Levi et al. to come.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

OK, I guess it was not clear to me what you were pointing out.  It had the 
sound of sarcasm...my bad.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: DJ Cravens 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 12:33 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



that is why I said: "if your process requires electrical input you must have a 
high COP.  for a real world device when you have to also make electrical 
conversion, fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such. "
 
You may want to re read my post. 
 
But also realize that Ecats are just one of many paths in the area of "CF".
 
D2
 


To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:17:10 -0400


Dennis, please look at the many descriptions that have been written about why 
the COP must be beyond a certain level to supply itself without having 
problems.  A COP of 2 to 1 could not make enough electricity to supply the 
drive by any means.
 
Electronic control required electrical energy and that must be available for 
stable operation of the device.
 
Dave


-Original Message-
From: DJ Cravens 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:58 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical 
input you must have a high COP.  The conversion from heat back into electrical 
power places restrictions on you ability to make it self sustaining.  IF you 
can get heat out at around 300C you theoretically could self sustain at 
somewhere just over 2:1 but that would require closely matching the conversion 
device and the rate of heat extraction.  

When you down in the sub 100C range (where I always seem to end up) for 
extraction, then you have to be at over 5:1 if you are perfect and more like 10 
to 1 for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, 
fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such.  
 
Also, you have to have a way to balance heat extraction rates with keeping the 
unit above its desired working temperature.  You just about have to have a 
variable heat conductive path of some kind. 
 
[ a few here might be interested- I am presently trying to make a variable heat 
path device using a concentric tube around a heat pipe with a ferro fluid 
between- but then I am a much lower COP ]
 


To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:46:26 -0400

Wrong again Cude.  No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without 
connection to the power mains.  Read what Rossi has written.  His definition of 
SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly 
cooling off but generating internal heat.  Controlled cooling has not been 
proven to work yet and may not work with the present design.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:06 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:





 

I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high 
wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs.





That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to 
melt, or explode, so it is not an option. 







That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were 
used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary 
temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 
reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. 
And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to 
make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical 
power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that 
produced the electricity to begin with.







 



  


  

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[DJ Cravens]

that is why I said: "if your process requires electrical input you must have a 
high COP.  for a real world device when you have to also make electrical 
conversion, fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such. "
 
You may want to re read my post. 
 
But also realize that Ecats are just one of many paths in the area of "CF".
 
D2
 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:17:10 -0400


Dennis, please look at the many descriptions that have been written about why 
the COP must be beyond a certain level to supply itself without having 
problems.  A COP of 2 to 1 could not make enough electricity to supply the 
drive by any means.

 

Electronic control required electrical energy and that must be available for 
stable operation of the device.

 

Dave





-Original Message-

From: DJ Cravens 

To: vortex-l 

Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:58 am

Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...













must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical 
input you must have a high COP.  The conversion from heat back into electrical 
power places restrictions on you ability to make it self sustaining.  IF you 
can get heat out at around 300C you theoretically could self sustain at 
somewhere just over 2:1 but that would require closely matching the conversion 
device and the rate of heat extraction.  



When you down in the sub 100C range (where I always seem to end up) for 
extraction, then you have to be at over 5:1 if you are perfect and more like 10 
to 1 for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, 
fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such.  

 

Also, you have to have a way to balance heat extraction rates with keeping the 
unit above its desired working temperature.  You just about have to have a 
variable heat conductive path of some kind. 

 

[ a few here might be interested- I am presently trying to make a variable heat 
path device using a concentric tube around a heat pipe with a ferro fluid 
between- but then I am a much lower COP ]

 


To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

From: dlrober...@aol.com

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:46:26 -0400



Wrong again Cude.  No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without 
connection to the power mains.  Read what Rossi has written.  His definition of 
SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly 
cooling off but generating internal heat.  Controlled cooling has not been 
proven to work yet and may not work with the present design.








Dave










-Original Message-


From: Joshua Cude 


To: vortex-l 


Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:06 am


Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...















On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:





















 





I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high 
wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs.



















That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to 
melt, or explode, so it is not an option. 

























That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were 
used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary 
temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 
reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. 
And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to 
make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical 
power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that 
produced the electricity to begin with.



























 




















  









  

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Dennis, please look at the many descriptions that have been written about why 
the COP must be beyond a certain level to supply itself without having 
problems.  A COP of 2 to 1 could not make enough electricity to supply the 
drive by any means.

Electronic control required electrical energy and that must be available for 
stable operation of the device.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: DJ Cravens 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:58 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical 
input you must have a high COP.  The conversion from heat back into electrical 
power places restrictions on you ability to make it self sustaining.  IF you 
can get heat out at around 300C you theoretically could self sustain at 
somewhere just over 2:1 but that would require closely matching the conversion 
device and the rate of heat extraction.  

When you down in the sub 100C range (where I always seem to end up) for 
extraction, then you have to be at over 5:1 if you are perfect and more like 10 
to 1 for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, 
fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such.  
 
Also, you have to have a way to balance heat extraction rates with keeping the 
unit above its desired working temperature.  You just about have to have a 
variable heat conductive path of some kind. 
 
[ a few here might be interested- I am presently trying to make a variable heat 
path device using a concentric tube around a heat pipe with a ferro fluid 
between- but then I am a much lower COP ]
 


To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:46:26 -0400

Wrong again Cude.  No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without 
connection to the power mains.  Read what Rossi has written.  His definition of 
SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly 
cooling off but generating internal heat.  Controlled cooling has not been 
proven to work yet and may not work with the present design.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:06 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:





 

I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high 
wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs.





That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to 
melt, or explode, so it is not an option. 







That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were 
used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary 
temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 
reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. 
And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to 
make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical 
power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that 
produced the electricity to begin with.







 



  

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[DJ Cravens]

I just ripped it off the net.  It is just the limiting Carnott efficiency
1-t/T like.
 
Yes there are small Stirlings that can convert down in the sub 100C range 
fairly efficiently, 
but with them you would have to go heat>mechanical >electrical> control you 
cell.   Peltiers give you direct heat > electrical but you are lucky to get 5% 
in the real world on those and that would mean a COP of 20 for a self 
sustaining thing.  
 
You also can get heat mechanical via things like NITINOL wire systems and Minto 
wheels at fairly low temps.
 
[my target for NI is 2 to 3:1 but not self sustaining,  I doubt it will be 
convincing to outsiders- just a start.   I do have one sample though that I 
might can get self heating enough to do mechanical work with a toy Stirling.  
But, as usual, not at levels to be free from fraud attacks]
 
Jed- do you know who/what is the demo listed for ICCF Monday evening?
 
D2
 
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:51:00 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

DJ Cravens  wrote:




must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical 
input you must have a high COP. 
Where did that graph come from? Did you make it?

I have never heard of mechanical work from temperatures below 100 deg C.


By the way, I wrote: "These [low temperature] devices would reduce electric 
power consumption by a large margin, and eliminate the use of natural gas for 
everything but cooking." I meant in household (domestic) applications.

These would have to be driven with mains electricity. Or perhaps with a Hot Cat 
power generator.

Energy applications are often divided into domestic, commercial, industrial and 
transportation sectors.

- Jed
  

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Cude, I hope that one day you will be subjected to the same level of scrutiny 
as you love to throw at everyone else.  To claim that these men are all 
scamming is contemptuous.  To deny that all the previous replications by 
various labs is fake or due to ignorance is beyond belief.

We would be better served if you returned to your 'moletrap' where you are the 
king.  They bow to you like their God.  I suspect that you are here in spades 
because one of them went crying to you about me proving him wrong.  It does not 
go past my review that you have failed to take me up on the offer of a spice 
replication attempt.  I suspect that spice models are far beyond your area of 
knowledge, and any EE subjects that you speak to should be disregarded.

Josh, you could put your talents to good use instead of wasting them like this. 
 How unfortunate it is that you have a hobby of debunking cold fusion instead 
of trying to enhance the effort.   I have not totally given up on you yet and 
perhaps one day you will see the light.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:26 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:
 



Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and he is 
as bad as Rossi. And he brought most of the instruments. 




I see. And these other co-authors are so stupid they do not even notice the 
equipment is not working? 










Probably. Essen was stupid enough to think a humidity probe could determine 
steam quality, or that visual inspection of steam was enough.




> Even though they calibrated the wattmeter with a resistor? Even though they 
> stepped a blank cell through a calibration?


Different power regimen. Doesn't count.




> So you are saying Levi wants to destroy his own reputation for no reason, for 
> no possible benefit. 


There may be benefit, and he has retained plausible deniability, so the risk is 
small.


> Because there is not slightest chance he or Rossi will get away with this. 
> Sooner or later someone will bring an instrument that reveals the scam.


Much later is possible though. BLP has gone for 20 years+ with many claims and 
no product and no revealing of a scam.


> Also, how did Rossi and Levi manage to make modern integrated circuit 
> instruments work wrong? 


Watch these videos if you didn't like the cheese video.


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD7DzTIFJdU
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KMLmpC7-Ls


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1eMryiU1ro




They're not about faking power, but show some amazing electronics fakes.


 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Why don't you review the actual peak input drive levels required Josh?  Once 
you understand how it operates your statement will become non sense even to you.

Some form of energy storage will be required as has been said several times.   
Please try to understand the system.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:22 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen  wrote:




Portable generator is also fine and even better, because it leaves very little 
room for tricks and doubt. But after 10 or so demonstrations we have had only 
one portable generator and that also was brought by Rossi.






And it had the same output as the claimed ecat.


 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

That is right Josh, keep raising the bar.  There has been sufficient proof 
shown so far and you and your friends have not accepted it.  Why should Rossi 
think that any additional level of proof would be anything but a waste of his 
time?  He is smarter than you realize.  I can hardly wait for the day when you 
fade away into the woodwork claiming that you were favoring the ECAT all along. 
 Your position is well established at this point.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:21 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:






WHY are you so certain that wattmeters do not work?!? 







You know that's not the objection.


> There is no chance Rossi can fool one, and if the people doing the test have 
> any doubt about that, they can bring a portable generator.


Would that they had.




> To put it another way, if you do not trust the wattmeter, why would you trust 
> the IR camera or thermocouple? If Rossi can fool a wattmeter he can fool any 
> instrument.


What would he fool with an isolated device? And he couldn't fool a mercury 
thermometer to measure the temperature of a tank of water, if it was brought by 
a skeptic to a neutral location.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

DJ Cravens  wrote:

must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires
> electrical input you must have a high COP.
>

Where did that graph come from? Did you make it?

I have never heard of mechanical work from temperatures below 100 deg C.



By the way, I wrote: "These [low temperature] devices would reduce electric
power consumption by a large margin, and eliminate the use of natural gas
for everything but cooking." I meant in household (domestic) applications.

These would have to be driven with mains electricity. Or perhaps with a Hot
Cat power generator.

Energy applications are often divided into domestic, commercial, industrial
and transportation sectors.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

So why would you want to buy three tons of coal to generate electricity if only 
one ton were needed?  Rossi has pointed out on several occasions that his 
device will operate with gas heating.  Would you prefer to put out that extra 
carbon dioxide and pay the extra cost for the coal if you had an ECAT that 
tripled your energy supply?

I prefer the many options that open when the COP is 6, but that does not mean 
that a COP of 3 is not important.  You should know better than to make these 
kinds of statements.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:19 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:






If the device cannotself-power, it is still valuable with a lower COP, the 
proverbial hot water orspace heater -







A COP of 3 is not useful if the electricity was made with fossil fuels at an 
efficiency of 1/3. That's a wash.


 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

You know that we are just being truthful Cude.  The evidence is overwhelming at 
this point but you do not see it.  And I have tried to educate you about how 
heat controls the ECAT and you fail to understand.  Frankly, I do not know what 
else can be done except to have you burn yourself sitting upon one of the ECATs 
that has its control system turned off.  Even then, you would swear that 
someone had hidden gasoline inside it prior to your sitting.  You are a broken 
record.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:16 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:




Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his tea.







If you believe Rothwell and Roberson, skeptics will never have to concede, 
because no application of cold fusion is obvious enough to make them believe 
it. Therefore, there will be no crow, or tea, on the menu.


Of course the premise is nonsense. But the last sentence is still almost 
certainly true.

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[DJ Cravens]

must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical 
input you must have a high COP.  The conversion from heat back into electrical 
power places restrictions on you ability to make it self sustaining.  IF you 
can get heat out at around 300C you theoretically could self sustain at 
somewhere just over 2:1 but that would require closely matching the conversion 
device and the rate of heat extraction.  

When you down in the sub 100C range (where I always seem to end up) for 
extraction, then you have to be at over 5:1 if you are perfect and more like 10 
to 1 for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, 
fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such.  
 
Also, you have to have a way to balance heat extraction rates with keeping the 
unit above its desired working temperature.  You just about have to have a 
variable heat conductive path of some kind. 
 
[ a few here might be interested- I am presently trying to make a variable heat 
path device using a concentric tube around a heat pipe with a ferro fluid 
between- but then I am a much lower COP ]
 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:46:26 -0400

Wrong again Cude.  No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without 
connection to the power mains.  Read what Rossi has written.  His definition of 
SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly 
cooling off but generating internal heat.  Controlled cooling has not been 
proven to work yet and may not work with the present design.




Dave






-Original Message-

From: Joshua Cude 

To: vortex-l 

Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:06 am

Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...










On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:












 


I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high 
wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs.











That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to 
melt, or explode, so it is not an option. 














That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were 
used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary 
temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 
reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. 
And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to 
make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical 
power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that 
produced the electricity to begin with.















 












  

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

How much of an impact will it have upon you (Cude) to hear that an ECAT self 
distructed because the input control was removed?  Hum, seems like that has 
been stated.

Get real, admit that there is no level of performance that would convince you 
except for the next one you dig up.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:15 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:






There was a time when this field desperately needed a standalone self powered 
reactor to prove the reaction is real. That is because absolute power was low, 
ranging from 5 to 100 W. However, now that Rossi has developed high-powered 
reactors ranging from 500 to . . . 1 MW (I guess?) the need for standalone 
reactors is reduced.





Nonsense, the absence is all the more suspicious. With a thermal-to-thermal COP 
of 2 or more, it should be a piece of cake to make it self-sustaining. That he 
hasn't most likely means the claims are bogus. 




> The only way these results could be wrong would be if Rossi has somehow found 
> a way to fool a watt meter. If he is capable of doing that he is also capable 
> of making something that looks like a self-sustaining demonstration but is 
> not.


Disagree. The latter is not in the same league.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Cude, you are consistent at least.  You are like a Mary Yugo on steroids.  Both 
of you repeat your statements over and over and they have no substance.  I just 
proved your DC cheat trick inert and the others you insist upon depend upon 
Rossi running a scam so you have nothing but straws.

I only believe what I have seen adequately demonstrated.  You would not believe 
anything you see period.  That is the difference between us.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:13 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:18 PM, David Roberson  wrote:




 
The best proof is one that has the least possibility of error.  




Or the least possibility of error that favors the ecat, or the least 
possibility of tampering. An isolated ecat eliminates input tampering. A heated 
tank of water eliminates output tampering. 


Heating an isolated tank of water of sufficient volume to sufficient 
temperature with an isolated device is pretty much iron-clad, as long as the 
isolation can be transparently verified.


>  Every complication that is added to the setup results in many more issues to 
> question by the skeptics. 


Not true if the complications allows disconnection from the mains, or allows 
manifest integration of the heat.


> The technique used by the testers of the ECAT is good enough for any 
> reasonable scientist to accept 


Only if you define reasonable as true believer.


> You fail to realize that there is no way what so ever to meet their 
> requirements since they do not believe LENR is possible.  


An isolated device heating an isolated tank of water in an isolated location 
would meet all the skeptics' requirements.


Anyway, as I said, you can't possibly think it will ever be practical, if you 
think skeptics cannot be convinced.


> They have failed to prove their position entirely, 


Also the believers have failed to prove theirs...



 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Again, how confident are you that controlled cooling will perform this 
function?   I have serious doubts that it is easy and you have serious doubts 
that it is possible at all.   Please tell us how sure you are that this will 
work?  Do you now believe that the ECAT is real?

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:09 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:50 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the 
loop.  Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job.
 



 










To close the loop with electricity, probably yes. But if you used controlled 
cooling, you could allow the ecat to rise to the temperature at which it 
self-sustains, and prevent runaway with the cooling. That would be the obvious 
way to do it.
 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> No matter how difficult it is to control the thing at higher COPs, methods
> will be found, and then perfected.
>

This control problem only seems to be an issue with the high temperature
Hot Cat model. At moderate temperatures Rossi ran for long periods with
less input power, and a much better COP. Therefore, if we're talking about
space heating or hot water heaters, where the temperature reaches about
80°C at most, he has already demonstrated commercially useful COP's. These
devices would reduce electric power consumption by a large margin, and
eliminate the use of natural gas for everything but cooking. As noted this
is a large fraction of all energy use. See chapter 15 of my book.

Applications that must have the Hot Cat higher temperatures include things
such as electric power generation, transportation, manufacturing, cooking,
and some process heat. Process heat used for curing wood and other
applications could be done with a low temperature Rossi reactors.

We think of energy as necessarily being high temperature high grade heat,
such as combustion heat. Actually a large fraction of useful heat is at low
temperatures. It just happens that most of our technology produces
high-grade heat. This is often an impedance mismatch. It would be better if
we could make heat at 50°C rather than thousands of degrees which then have
to be cooled down, from a gas flame to space heating. This is crying shame
from the point of view of thermodynamics. Heat pumps are a far better use
of such high grade energy. A gas flame powered heat pump heating coil would
be a better use of natural gas, but it would be difficult to engineer.

As I remarked in the last pages of my book, the ultimate impedance mismatch
would be a Tokamak reactor which produces temperatures of 400,000,000°C,
and might end up being used for resistance electric power heating in houses.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote, regarding a COP of 3:

 Wrong. The ECat at low gain would be valuable to the segment of the
> population whose only affordable alternative is a resistance space heater
> COP=1 versus LENR heater COP=3.
>

There are not many people like that in the first world. Most of them are in
the U.S. Pacific Northwest where the electricity comes from hydro or wind
power, so production does not take 3 units of thermal power per 1 unit of
electricity.

That is what I recall from the EIA.


Next is the home electric water heater. For them, net power for heat is cut
> by two thirds.
>

Right.



> DoE says space heating and water heating are the largest consumer of
> energy in U.S. residences, accounting for approximately 15% of total
> electricity usage.
>

Right again. Electric water heating is more common that resistance electric
space heating.

However, as I said there is no reason to think Rossi or anyone else is
limited to a COP of 3. In the most recent tests, the first COP was 6 and
the second was 3 but that was very conservative. Probably it was closer to
4.

No matter how difficult it is to control the thing at higher COPs, methods
will be found, and then perfected. People are able to control extremely
dangerous reactions, such as igniting small amounts of gasoline without
causing the entire vehicle to explode. This is done all over the world in
billions of automobiles every day. Automobiles seldom burn. When they were
first developed Otto cycle engines and diesel engines burned and exploded
often.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Wrong again Cude.  No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without 
connection to the power mains.  Read what Rossi has written.  His definition of 
SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly 
cooling off but generating internal heat.  Controlled cooling has not been 
proven to work yet and may not work with the present design.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:06 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:





 

I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high 
wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs.





That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to 
melt, or explode, so it is not an option. 







That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were 
used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary 
temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 
reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. 
And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to 
make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical 
power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that 
produced the electricity to begin with.







 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Do you promise to accept the results if he uses one of these calorimeters?  Why 
do I think not?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:07 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:




Flow calorimetry has much to be said for it but it is more complicated and less 
believable than this. A lot more can go wrong with it, and usually does go 
wrong with it for the first several weeks.



 








It is both more believable, which is why it is actually used for calorimetry, 
while ir thermometry is not (normally), and has the important advantage that 
you can control and tailor the cooling.


 

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jones Beene]

Wrong. The ECat at low gain would be valuable to the segment of the
population whose only affordable alternative is a resistance space heater
COP=1 versus LENR heater COP=3. Next is the home electric water heater. For
them, net power for heat is cut by two thirds. DoE says space heating and
water heating are the largest consumer of energy in U.S. residences,
accounting for approximately 15% of total electricity usage.

 

Savings from this market alone in the USA is a minimum $15 billion annual -
from a COP=3 device - if it is safe enough for home use. The low gain is
valuable to the those with daytime solar power, needing to maximize house
heating from a limited amount of electricity, or at night from electricity
stored by batteries.

 

. so little imagination, so much debilitating stubbornness. 

 

From: Joshua Cude 

 

A COP of 3 is not useful if the electricity was made with fossil fuels at an
efficiency of 1/3. That's a wash.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Cude,


I was of the understanding that you have accepted the accuracy of the thermal 
imaging output power measurement.  Are you now returning to that lost cause?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:03 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:


Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the 
propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made 
irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other 
words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't 
have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still 
validate the claim of significant over unity energy output.














It's not an order of magnitude, it's a factor of 3. That's the power gain. You 
can get an order of magnitude in claimed energy density with only a 10% gain in 
power if you wait long enough. So, the claimed energy density is kind of 
arbitrary, and relies on the credibility of the power measurement.


Still, a factor of 3 is a lot, and if the measurements can be trusted, it's 
difficult to make an error that large. But it's an indirect method, and if 
there's suspicion of tampering or deception, it's better to use direct methods. 
Heating an actual volume of water, or even a flow of water, is harder to fake, 
as long as you avoid phase changes, and put the thermocouple probes in the 
water.





 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Try to be serious Cude.  You know that you would find fault with any test 
system regardless of its performance.  Your record speaks for itself.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:02 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:





I have significant experience with flow calorimeters. I would say:


1. It would end up costing much more than a few hundred dollars.





True. But not more than 10k for an off-the-shelf unit. That sounds like a 
bargain for what Rossi's doing.




> 2. It would take weeks of testing and futzing around to make it work.




> 3. It would clog up and it would leak. They always do. I would hate to work 
> with something like this running constantly for months!


Not if it's off-the-shelf. It would be designed to work for months,and would 
certainly be adequate for days, which is what these experiments were run for.


> 4. The skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt it, as they did with 
> Rossi's other flow calorimeters (some of which I will grant were not good).


Well, if he produced steam, then yes. Otherwise, a repeat of Levi's experiment 
was repeatedly requested, but never done. How hard would it be to measure the 
temperature in the water flow, and if you circulate water from a large tank, 
even better. You say skeptics can't be pleased, but the experiments specified 
for the steam cat were simply never done, so how can you know. And now he's 
abandoned that configuration and is doing something totally different, with its 
own problems.


> No test can answer all questions or lay to rest all doubts. 


Of course it can. At least any doubts about the existence of a new source of 
energy. An isolated thing that heats a lot of water would do it, under suitable 
scrutiny..

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Nope, each takes a lot of engineering effort to achieve.   When did you become 
an expert on the design of ECATs?  You don't even believe they work in the 
first place, how can you offer solutions to the problems?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:01 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson  wrote:




The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into which it 
operates.  This is what should be expected.
 







Exactly, and controlled cooling provides a way to adjust it. Sitting in the 
open air does not.
 


 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Cude,


You always over simplify the system.  If these types of devices were easy to 
control and to work with, everyone could do it.  How much time do you think 
Rossi should devote to trying to prove this to skeptics with your opinion?  I 
think he should concentrate his efforts upon those that really want to know the 
truth instead of folks that just debunk for pleasure.  He would be wasting 
valuable time dealing with your concerns.  You will eventually accept the truth 
but only after about half of mankind.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:00 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


Dennis,
 
I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the experiment 
that you propose.  




It's amazing the excuses true believers contrive to explain why inferior 
experiments were used. If the thing is to be useful, it should at least be able 
to heat water.




> The recent tests were conducted in the open air and the thermal resistance 
> that the ECAT works into has a very strong influence upon its operational 
> parameters.


But the thermal resistance is completely out of the experimenters control, and 
is affected by people walking by. Some kind of water cooling could be designed 
to remove heat at exactly the same rate, and would be easily controllable. How 
is that not preferable?


> If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat would 
> be conducted away from the core. 


That depends on how it is coupled to the water. But it doesn't need to placed 
into a tank. You can just circulate cooling water through conduits inside an 
enclosure. These things are already available off the shelf, and for much 
higher temperatures.


> This loss of internal temperature likely would prevent the positive feedback 
> from operating properly.  I suspect that he went to a lot of trouble 
> adjusting the parameters so that the experiment would be successful in the 
> open air instead of the typical connection methods planned. 


But why? It has practically no use in that configuration. To exploit it, 
especially to make electricity, requires some kind of heat exchange, usually 
with a fluid.
 
> Many skeptics insist upon a simple experiment where the ECAT is naked and is 
> easy to observe as protection against scams.  He has made a great deal of 
> effort to accommodate their wishes and they are still not satisfied.   Do you 
> honestly think that Cude and the others would not come up with some other 
> excuses to claim that the test was not accurate if set up as you suggest?


> I am convinced that there is no possible way to convince them that his device 
> is real.  


If you think skeptics can't be convinced, how do you think it can ever be made 
practical?


A system that heats a volume of water would be pretty convincing. That would 
leave only the input side to worry about. A generator with finite fuel would be 
good, as long as open scrutiny were permitted, but using controlled cooling 
should make it possible to self-sustain, and then no input at all would be 
necessary. Heating enough water in a neutral location without any input and 
with open scrutiny would convince anyone.


But this system is so far from adequate from a skeptical view, that it's a 
joke. The input is unnecessarily complex and measurements are inadequate, the 
output is indirectly measured, the blank run uses a different power regimen, 
the system should self-sustain, but doesn't, the reactor temperature (central 
cylinder) is not monitored, and above all, it's behind closed doors in Rossi's 
facilities supervised by hand-picked academics, most of which have been avowed 
supporters from the beginning.


A month before this report, I indicated what I thought would be significant, 
and what wouldn't. None of the criteria I suggested were needed were met in 
this test. And it fits the description of a test I specifically said would fall 
short. It's in the first verbose post I wrote on the subject here. So, this 
does not represent a change of criteria. On the other hand, true believers were 
hoping for an independent test with a dozen researchers from 4 universities 
published under peer review. But they seem to have lowered their standards and 
are perfectly happy with this farce.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:


> That is true. The risk for Levi is negligible and he can always claim
> ignorance.
>

The risk is that his reputation would be shattered. He would be forced to
retire at least.



> So If Levi is making few dozens of kiloeuros extra money with Rossi with
> very little efforts. . .
>

Do you seriously believe that a professor at a national university would
destroy his own reputation and lose his job and all of his friends and
professional associations in exchange for a few thousand euro?!? Can you
point an example of a professor who has done that.

Again I say: your speculation is far removed from reality. People do not
act this way. They do not ruin their lives for trivial sums of money.


These accusations of fraud have circulated for years. I ask you: Where is
the evidence? Where are the victims? Where are the indictments? Rossi has
shipped equipment and put on many demonstrations, some in public, others in
private. Why has no one other than Krivit come forward with claims that
Rossi cheated?

There is not a shred of evidence for this hypothesis. It is based on
Rossi's flamboyant personality and his legal troubles in the past, which is
to say it is based on nothing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jouni Valkonen]

On Jun 4, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>> Jouni Valkonen  wrote:
>>  
>>> Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and he 
>>> is as bad as Rossi.  
>> 
> > So you are saying Levi wants to destroy his own reputation for no reason, 
> > for no possible benefit. 
> 
> There may be benefit, and he has retained plausible deniability, so the risk 
> is small.
> 

That is true. The risk for Levi is negligible and he can always claim 
ignorance. Levi has very steady job at university and his pay roll is 
determined solely by his Ph.D level education and his work experience measured 
in years. If there are any deviations, Levi can just ask the Union lawyer to 
clear things up. 

His academic credentials are not based on how nice person he is but how peer 
review panels are rating his published articles: 
http://scholar.google.fi/citations?hl=en&user=vEZM3BQJ&view_op=list_works&pagesize=100

So If Levi is making few dozens of kiloeuros extra money with Rossi with very 
little efforts, his involvement is more than justified. If I were in Levi's 
shoes, I would without any doubt help Rossi as much I dare. After all this is 
not an academic scam, because academic world does not take commercial level 
cold fusion anyway seriously!

―Jouni

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jouni Valkonen  wrote:
>
>
>> Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and
>> he is as bad as Rossi. And he brought most of the instruments.
>>
>
> I see. And these other co-authors are so stupid they do not even notice
> the equipment is not working?
>




Probably. Essen was stupid enough to think a humidity probe could determine
steam quality, or that visual inspection of steam was enough.



> Even though they calibrated the wattmeter with a resistor? Even though
they stepped a blank cell through a calibration?


Different power regimen. Doesn't count.



> So you are saying Levi wants to destroy his own reputation for no reason,
for no possible benefit.


There may be benefit, and he has retained plausible deniability, so the
risk is small.


> Because there is not slightest chance he or Rossi will get away with
this. Sooner or later someone will bring an instrument that reveals the
scam.


Much later is possible though. BLP has gone for 20 years+ with many claims
and no product and no revealing of a scam.


> Also, how did Rossi and Levi manage to make modern integrated circuit
instruments work wrong?


Watch these videos if you didn't like the cheese video.


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD7DzTIFJdU

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KMLmpC7-Ls


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1eMryiU1ro



They're not about faking power, but show some amazing electronics fakes.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> Nothing in the recent test was brought by Rossi. This test was a hands-off
> "black box" test, exactly what the skeptics have been demanding. It seems
> you will not take "yes" for an answer.
>
>
>


So much nonsense. The test was running when they arrived in December, and
the instruments were the same in March. In fact the ir camera, and the
power meter were the same as used in the various experiments reported in
2012. Rossi's fingerprints are on every aspect of this test.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

>
> Portable generator is also fine and even better, because it leaves very
> little room for tricks and doubt. But after 10 or so demonstrations we have
> had only one portable generator and that also was brought by Rossi.
>
>

And it had the same output as the claimed ecat.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> WHY are you so certain that wattmeters do not work?!?
>


You know that's not the objection.


> There is no chance Rossi can fool one, and if the people doing the test
have any doubt about that, they can bring a portable generator.


Would that they had.



> To put it another way, if you do not trust the wattmeter, why would you
trust the IR camera or thermocouple? If Rossi can fool a wattmeter he can
fool any instrument.


What would he fool with an isolated device? And he couldn't fool a mercury
thermometer to measure the temperature of a tank of water, if it was
brought by a skeptic to a neutral location.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> If it is real it is the most important advance in technology since the
> discovery of fire. If the scientific community is convinced it is real,
> every industrial corporation and university will be hard at work on this.
> ~$100 million per day will devoted to it.
>
>
>

Huh. That's what the skeptics say. I thought true believers thought that it
was being suppressed because the mainstream hates cldan and abundant energy
and challenges to the status quo.


I'll hang on to that quote the next time conspiracy theories rear their
ugly head.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> If the device cannot self-power, it is still valuable with a lower COP,
> the proverbial hot water or space heater -
>


A COP of 3 is not useful if the electricity was made with fossil fuels at
an efficiency of 1/3. That's a wash.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

>
> Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his
> tea.
>
>

If you believe Rothwell and Roberson, skeptics will never have to concede,
because no application of cold fusion is obvious enough to make them
believe it. Therefore, there will be no crow, or tea, on the menu.


Of course the premise is nonsense. But the last sentence is still almost
certainly true.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> There was a time when this field desperately needed a standalone self
> powered reactor to prove the reaction is real. That is because absolute
> power was low, ranging from 5 to 100 W. However, now that Rossi has
> developed high-powered reactors ranging from 500 to . . . 1 MW (I guess?)
> the need for standalone reactors is reduced.
>

Nonsense, the absence is all the more suspicious. With a thermal-to-thermal
COP of 2 or more, it should be a piece of cake to make it self-sustaining.
That he hasn't most likely means the claims are bogus.



> The only way these results could be wrong would be if Rossi has somehow
found a way to fool a watt meter. If he is capable of doing that he is also
capable of making something that looks like a self-sustaining demonstration
but is not.


Disagree. The latter is not in the same league.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

>
>>
>>
> Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy
> without stopping would be pretty damn convincing.
>
>
>
Nice to see you can envision a demo that would convince skeptics.
Unfortunately the actual demos don't ever get better. They never approach
this sort of level. There is always talk of self-sustaining, but it is
never reached, in a public demo.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:18 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

>
>
> The best proof is one that has the least possibility of error.
>

Or the least possibility of error that favors the ecat, or the least
possibility of tampering. An isolated ecat eliminates input tampering. A
heated tank of water eliminates output tampering.


Heating an isolated tank of water of sufficient volume to sufficient
temperature with an isolated device is pretty much iron-clad, as long as
the isolation can be transparently verified.


>  Every complication that is added to the setup results in many more
issues to question by the skeptics.


Not true if the complications allows disconnection from the mains, or
allows manifest integration of the heat.


> The technique used by the testers of the ECAT is good enough for any
reasonable scientist to accept


Only if you define reasonable as true believer.


> You fail to realize that there is no way what so ever to meet their
requirements since they do not believe LENR is possible.


An isolated device heating an isolated tank of water in an isolated
location would meet all the skeptics' requirements.


Anyway, as I said, you can't possibly think it will ever be practical, if
you think skeptics cannot be convinced.


> They have failed to prove their position entirely,


Also the believers have failed to prove theirs...

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> I do not understand what you have in mind here. Nature allows us to do
> some things and not others. We have to work with what nature allows, not
> what we would wish for in an ideal universe.[...]
>
> Obviously with more engineering R&D a self-sustaining Rossi reactor could
> be made.
>


How is that so obvious, after your song and dance about what nature allows.


I think it's obvious now, that if it is triggered by heat, and it makes
heat, it's a matter of controlling how much heat dissipates to make it
self-sustaining. And he's claimed 100 hours of self-sustaining already.
That's enough for a whiz-bang demo.



>  It would not prove anything the present test does not prove. Mary Yugo
> would insist it is fake. Robert Park would ignore it. Why bother? Just use
> a different watt meter next time and all remaining questions vanish as
> surely as they would with a self-sustaining reactor.
>
>
>



Well, that's not consistent with your previous statements about the need
for an isolated self-sustaining device that remains palpably hotter than
ambient as a demo that could not be refuted. I think that's right, but it
just never appears, even though cold fusion is supposed to have an energy
density a million times that of dynamite.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:03 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:

> They only need to make their sponsors happy not Crude.   I hope the best
> for them.
>
>


Hey, if you're referring to me, I'm with you all the way on the
self-sustaining water-tank heating demo. So the insult is particularly
hurtful.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:50 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the
> loop.  Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job.
>
>
>



To close the loop with electricity, probably yes. But if you used
controlled cooling, you could allow the ecat to rise to the temperature at
which it self-sustains, and prevent runaway with the cooling. That would be
the obvious way to do it.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
>
> I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get
> an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you
> would maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks.
> The body (the bath and its container) would be losing heat into the
> surroundings. It amounts to more or less the same thing they are doing now,
> with a bigger body and more thermal mass, plus evaporation and other
> complicated stuff. I do not see an advantage.
>
>

Heat loss is of course an obvious problem in heating a large tank of water.
But if it were simply ignored, and the tank still heated up, it would
strengthen the claim of excess heat, not weaken it. Moreover, a blank run
could be used to verify the effect of the ecat. A modern hot tub at 37C
loses about 100W to 200W in ambient temperature, if covered. That would
increase as the temperature went up, but presumably losses could be
significantly reduced with a better cover, and possibly more insulation.
But with an ecat producing 1.5 kW like the December run, it should be
possible to demonstrate excess heat pretty clearly.


> It does not avoid the steam question! On the contrary, with a body water
you are right back to that problem, with evaporation.


With a covered tank below the boiling point, evaporation can be ignored.



> The present method is the simplest. Using a body of hot water heated to
terminal temperature would be more complicated.


But far more direct and unequivocal. It has a visual way of integrating the
heat that spot temperature measurement does not.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> Flow calorimetry has much to be said for it but it is more complicated and
> less believable than this. A lot more can go wrong with it, and usually
> does go wrong with it for the first several weeks.
>
>
>



It is both more believable, which is why it is actually used for
calorimetry, while ir thermometry is not (normally), and has the important
advantage that you can control and tailor the cooling.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
>
>
>> I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not
>> high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs.
>>
>
> That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to
> melt, or explode, so it is not an option.
>


That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were
used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary
temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the
2012 reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained
running. And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be
possible to make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make
more electrical power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with
the fuel that produced the electricity to begin with.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with.
>
>
>
That's true for true believers. For everyone else the usual saying
represents common sense, and the opinion of great thinkers from Pascal
through Sagan. I see no reason to consider your view above theirs

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

> Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the
> propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made
> irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other
> words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't
> have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still
> validate the claim of significant over unity energy output.
>
>>
>>

It's not an order of magnitude, it's a factor of 3. That's the power gain.
You can get an order of magnitude in claimed energy density with only a 10%
gain in power if you wait long enough. So, the claimed energy density is
kind of arbitrary, and relies on the credibility of the power measurement.


Still, a factor of 3 is a lot, and if the measurements can be trusted, it's
difficult to make an error that large. But it's an indirect method, and if
there's suspicion of tampering or deception, it's better to use direct
methods. Heating an actual volume of water, or even a flow of water, is
harder to fake, as long as you avoid phase changes, and put the
thermocouple probes in the water.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> I have significant experience with flow calorimeters. I would say:
>
> 1. It would end up costing much more than a few hundred dollars.
>

True. But not more than 10k for an off-the-shelf unit. That sounds like a
bargain for what Rossi's doing.



> 2. It would take weeks of testing and futzing around to make it work.



> 3. It would clog up and it would leak. They always do. I would hate to
work with something like this running constantly for months!


Not if it's off-the-shelf. It would be designed to work for months,and
would certainly be adequate for days, which is what these experiments were
run for.


> 4. The skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt it, as they did
with Rossi's other flow calorimeters (some of which I will grant were not
good).


Well, if he produced steam, then yes. Otherwise, a repeat of Levi's
experiment was repeatedly requested, but never done. How hard would it be
to measure the temperature in the water flow, and if you circulate water
from a large tank, even better. You say skeptics can't be pleased, but the
experiments specified for the steam cat were simply never done, so how can
you know. And now he's abandoned that configuration and is doing something
totally different, with its own problems.


> No test can answer all questions or lay to rest all doubts.


Of course it can. At least any doubts about the existence of a new source
of energy. An isolated thing that heats a lot of water would do it, under
suitable scrutiny..

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

>
> The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into which it
> operates.  This is what should be expected.
>
>
>

Exactly, and controlled cooling provides a way to adjust it. Sitting in the
open air does not.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Dennis,
>
> I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the
> experiment that you propose.
>

It's amazing the excuses true believers contrive to explain why inferior
experiments were used. If the thing is to be useful, it should at least be
able to heat water.



> The recent tests were conducted in the open air and the thermal
resistance that the ECAT works into has a very strong influence upon its
operational parameters.


But the thermal resistance is completely out of the experimenters control,
and is affected by people walking by. Some kind of water cooling could be
designed to remove heat at exactly the same rate, and would be easily
controllable. How is that not preferable?


> If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat
would be conducted away from the core.


That depends on how it is coupled to the water. But it doesn't need to
placed into a tank. You can just circulate cooling water through conduits
inside an enclosure. These things are already available off the shelf, and
for much higher temperatures.


> This loss of internal temperature likely would prevent the positive
feedback from operating properly.  I suspect that he went to a lot of
trouble adjusting the parameters so that the experiment would be successful
in the open air instead of the typical connection methods planned.


But why? It has practically no use in that configuration. To exploit it,
especially to make electricity, requires some kind of heat exchange,
usually with a fluid.



> Many skeptics insist upon a simple experiment where the ECAT is naked
and is easy to observe as protection against scams.  He has made a great
deal of effort to accommodate their wishes and they are still not
satisfied.   Do you honestly think that Cude and the others would not come
up with some other excuses to claim that the test was not accurate if set
up as you suggest?


> I am convinced that there is no possible way to convince them that his
device is real.


If you think skeptics can't be convinced, how do you think it can ever be
made practical?


A system that heats a volume of water would be pretty convincing. That
would leave only the input side to worry about. A generator with finite
fuel would be good, as long as open scrutiny were permitted, but using
controlled cooling should make it possible to self-sustain, and then no
input at all would be necessary. Heating enough water in a neutral location
without any input and with open scrutiny would convince anyone.


But this system is so far from adequate from a skeptical view, that it's a
joke. The input is unnecessarily complex and measurements are inadequate,
the output is indirectly measured, the blank run uses a different power
regimen, the system should self-sustain, but doesn't, the reactor
temperature (central cylinder) is not monitored, and above all, it's behind
closed doors in Rossi's facilities supervised by hand-picked academics,
most of which have been avowed supporters from the beginning.


A month before this report, I indicated what I thought would be
significant, and what wouldn't. None of the criteria I suggested were
needed were met in this test. And it fits the description of a test I
specifically said would fall short. It's in the first verbose post I wrote
on the subject here. So, this does not represent a change of criteria. On
the other hand, true believers were hoping for an independent test with a
dozen researchers from 4 universities published under peer review. But they
seem to have lowered their standards and are perfectly happy with this
farce.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> They used perfectly normal calorimetry.
>


Normal to me means common. But I have not seen calorimetry performed with
IR thermometry. Do you have some references for where it has been used?





> There is not the slightest chance output is any less than 3 times input.
>


The thing about that method is that it's indirect, and there is no natural
way to integrate the output energy. That gives opportunities for deception.
If you actually heat a large volume of water, the heat had to come from
somewhere, so that's more unequivocal. And if that's done with a clearly
isolated device, the evidence would be much stronger. Then, if you take it
public, with unrestricted scrutiny, you've got a revolution.




>
> I do not think it would be good idea to put reactor in an enclosure where
> you cannot keep an eye on it. The previous one melted, so I think they
> should leave it in the open air.
>
>

That's ridiculous. You keep an "eye" on it with thermocouples. And if you
have a cooling system, you have far more opportunity to do something about
it if it gets too hot.



> If they were to build something like an enclosure with flowing water tubes
> around the outside, the skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt
> those results. They would say that Rossi hid something in the box, or the
> flow rate is not correct, or the thermocouples are placed incorrectly, or
> this, or that, or an onion.
>
>

Not if the water were collected to integrate the heat. And insulation is
not heavy, so exceeding the entire device's weight in chemical fuel should
be easy. But yes, open public scrutiny, or accessibility to the device by
*any* qualified scientist would be necessary to allay all suspicions.



> It does not take much to set off the skeptics. Cude sees one extra wire
with three-phase electricity and he calls that "a rat's nest" of wires. One
wire!


You're mixing objections up. The rat's nest of wires is possible with
single-phase too. The reality is that it is a rat's nest from the pictures.
The 3-phase involves more complicated measurement, and additional wiring. I
don't know if there was a neutral or ground from the mains, but if there
were, then it's more than one wire, and 3 times the measurements, and also
more processing -- and for no advantage.


> No doubt he would call a flow calorimeter a rat's nest of cooling water
pipes and way too many thermocouples.


If you circulate the water from a 1000L tank, you wouldn't need anything
more than a mercury thermometer to verify the heat produced. Thermocouples
could be used to regulate things, but it would not affect the actual amount
of heat needed to heat a volume of water.


If you think that the ecat has a practical future, then surely an
unequivocal demonstration should be possible.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:38 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> OK, I'll ask the question a different way:
>
> Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the
> researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry?
>
>
>


In the December run, the experiment was already running, so there was
clearly no opportunity.


They did not change very much for the March run, so the most likely
explanation is that the option was not available, since it would clearly
involve some modification to the ecat, but this is obviously speculation.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:42 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with
> some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate
> 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would
> cost "a couple hundred bucks maybe...".  Obviously if this is true then the
> $20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would
> have been more than adequate.  Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then
> it is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to
> discounting the report:
>
>
>
I didn't see the claim, but I suspect some hyperbole was involved. But I
would be skeptical of a $20,000 budget when a technology of this value was
being validated, and you can buy tube furnaces off the shelf with water
cooling in the range of 10k. Then the only thing that might be necessary
for good calorimetry might be additional insulation.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Harry Veeder]

A visual demonstration would impress the masses.
Use a real ecat and a dummy ecat with the same input power to inflate a
balloon
The real ecat will inflate the balloon faster.

Harry



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> DJ Cravens  wrote:
>
> Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed.   Just heating a
>> container of water - pool, spa, teapot
>>
>
> I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get
> an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you
> would maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks.
> The body (the bath and its container) would be losing heat into the
> surroundings. It amounts to more or less the same thing they are doing now,
> with a bigger body and more thermal mass, plus evaporation and other
> complicated stuff. I do not see an advantage.
>
> A spa or a pond is not a simple thing to model.
>
>
>You do not need to measure flow rates if the effect is significant.
>>
>
> You don't need to measure it now. You have to depend on Drs. Stefan and
> Boltzmann being right. As for convection, you just gotta look up the
> numbers in an HVAC textbook.
>
>
> It avoids all the % steam questions, the emissivity numbers, the air flow,
>> the cameras..
>>
>
> It does not avoid the steam question! On the contrary, with a body water
> you are right back to that problem, with evaporation. There are no serious
> questions about emissivity, air flow, or cameras. The emissivity can be set
> to 1 (worst case). The air flow comes out of an engineering textbook. We
> know the camera and emissivity are right because the thermocouple confirms
> them. All questions are addressed and all are closed.
>
>
> It is about the simplest measure of heat.
>>
>
> The present method is the simplest. Using a body of hot water heated to
> terminal temperature would be more complicated.
>
> The present method is not the most accurate but I doubt that a large body
> of water would be more accurate.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

I don't know what kind of thermal load the E-Cat can sustain, but I agree
> that dropping it into a backyard swimming pool for two weeks until the
> water starts boiling would be a pretty good publicity stunt.  I don't
> actually have a sense how long it would take for the water to boil --
> perhaps a day or two.
>

Per Jed's point about the swimmers giving off 450 W, it occurs to me that
this is an optimistic estimate.  :)  I do not think you could boil a
backyard pool by somehow submerging nine 100 W bulbs.  You'd probably need
something giving off an order of magnitude more power.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:03 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:

 You may want to refigure that if you want to run for extended times- an
> Olympic pool (likely overkill) has a volume of 2.5 million liters and some
> are indoors and have covers.  ( I would just use bubble wrap) You could
> easily go long enough to be an order of mag or two above chemical.
>

I don't know what kind of thermal load the E-Cat can sustain, but I agree
that dropping it into a backyard swimming pool for two weeks until the
water starts boiling would be a pretty good publicity stunt.  I don't
actually have a sense how long it would take for the water to boil --
perhaps a day or two.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jouni Valkonen  wrote:
>
>>
>> How much money you are willing to bet? A couple hundred bucks maybe?
>>
>
> I never place bets.
>
***I do.  It was my pleasure to put my money where my mouth was on Cold
Fusion and cash in.  But, alas, Intrade has shut down.

[Vo]:How I made money from Cold
Fusion
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37540.html


>
> I once had to spend a few weeks in Las Vegas installing computers in
> casinos. I never spent a nickel in a slot machine.  Las Vegas is the worst
> place I have ever been to.
>
***I agree.  Everything about that city says, "We don't care about you, we
just want your money."

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:

>
> How much money you are willing to bet? A couple hundred bucks maybe?
>

I never place bets.

I once had to spend a few weeks in Las Vegas installing computers in
casinos. I never spent a nickel in a slot machine.

Las Vegas is the worst place I have ever been to. I'd rather live in India.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jouni Valkonen]

On Jun 4, 2013, at 5:29 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> I think this "leading scam hypothesis" is far, far removed from reality.
> 

How much money you are willing to bet? A couple hundred bucks maybe?

―Jouni

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:


> Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and he
> is as bad as Rossi. And he brought most of the instruments.
>

I see. And these other co-authors are so stupid they do not even notice the
equipment is not working? Even though they calibrated the wattmeter with a
resistor? Even though they stepped a blank cell through a calibration?

So you are saying Levi wants to destroy his own reputation for no reason,
for no possible benefit. Because there is not slightest chance he or Rossi
will get away with this. Sooner or later someone will bring an instrument
that reveals the scam.

Also, how did Rossi and Levi manage to make modern integrated circuit
instruments work wrong? That is a remarkable achievement. Did they develop
millions of dollars in specialized equipment to manufacture replacement
integrated circuits? Because the only thing most people can do with a
modern meter is break it. "Most people" including the experts who
manufacture these things. There are no serviceable parts in them. Trying to
make one function but give the wrong answer would be about as easy as
making modern computer CPU hardware malfunction, give the wrong answer, yet
keep working.

I think this "leading scam hypothesis" is far, far removed from reality.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> There have been a handful of runaway reactions in 23 years. Very rare.
> There
> is no reliable evidence of infinite COP for more than a few hours, without
> runaway.
>

There have been many high COP runs lasting hours, and some heat after death
events lasting hours or days. If something can happen once by accident, we
can find out what made it happen, and trigger it deliberately a billion
times a day. That is what people did with electricity, starting with
Franklin.


Runaways have happened - the one of Vince Cockeram being little known and
> similar to Rossi's, reported to Vortex years ago. This risk is exactly why
> achieving adequate control will always require design choices that limit
> COP
> to a lower level.


Yes, runaways have happened. And stable operation at high COPs has also
happened.

High COPs have been achieved without explosions. Therefore they are
possible. Therefore they will eventually be perfected.

Your statement reminds me of what James Watt said about high pressure steam
engines. He held back the development of them because they were dangerous.
Even when the technology improved and they become less dangerous, he
continued to oppose them.

Just because a high COP may be risky now, at this early stage of the
development when practically nothing is known about the nature of cold
fusion, there is no reason to think this danger will continue. There is
irrefutable evidence that safe, high COP operation is possible -- because
it has been done.

Trying to judge the future of cold fusion by looking at today's laboratory
prototypes and Rossi's machine is like trying to imagine a Boeing 747 after
seeing the 1905 Wright Flyer. Or imagining a modern aeroderivative turbine
after seeing the Newcomen steam engine. Once we get real funding the
technology will be thousands and then millions of times better. Better
understood, better controlled, and better scaled up and down.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jouni Valkonen]

On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:55 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Jouni Valkonen  wrote:
>  
>> But after 10 or so demonstrations we have had only one portable generator 
>> and that also was brought by Rossi.
> 
> Nothing in the recent test was brought by Rossi. This test was a hands-off 
> "black box" test, exactly what the skeptics have been demanding.

Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and he is 
as bad as Rossi. And he brought most of the instruments. 

―Jouni

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jones Beene]

From: Jed Rothwell 
 
And yes, there is a significant qualitative difference
between COP of 6 and COP of 2.5 in terms of market value. The HotCat could
be on either end of that spectrum, based on what the last report indicated.

I am certain that you can have any COP you want with cold
fusion. 

There have been a handful of runaway reactions in 23 years. Very rare. There
is no reliable evidence of infinite COP for more than a few hours, without
runaway.

Rossi accidentally achieved an infinite COP when his reactor
melted. Several other reactors have melted, exploded or vaporized.

Runaways have happened - the one of Vince Cockeram being little known and
similar to Rossi's, reported to Vortex years ago. This risk is exactly why
achieving adequate control will always require design choices that limit COP
to a lower level. As was inadvertently revealed (the 1/3 gram) AR has
apparently discovered (the hard way) that he cannot safely use much of the
nickel isotope safely. The low fuel inventory is the design choice that
forced the testing setup of Levi and the Swedes to use pulsed electrical
input and lowering the risk of infinite COP or runaway.

All discussions of the COP and all concerns about it are
bogus. This is simply not an issue now, and it never has been.

Au contraire, achieving adequate gain with adequate control is probably the
most important issue of all in the future of LENR. 

The hard part is to make it stop self-powering before it
melts.
QED. It bears repeating: there is a significant qualitative difference
between COP of 6 and COP of 2.5 in terms of market value. The HotCat could
be on either end of that spectrum, based on what the last report indicated.
Jones


<>

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:


> Portable generator is also fine and even better, because it leaves very
> little room for tricks and doubt.


Very little room? Where would this room be? I mean in real life.



> But after 10 or so demonstrations we have had only one portable generator
> and that also was brought by Rossi.
>

Nothing in the recent test was brought by Rossi. This test was a hands-off
"black box" test, exactly what the skeptics have been demanding. It seems
you will not take "yes" for an answer.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jouni Valkonen]

On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:36 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> if the people doing the test have any doubt about that, they can bring a 
> portable generator.

Portable generator is also fine and even better, because it leaves very little 
room for tricks and doubt. But after 10 or so demonstrations we have had only 
one portable generator and that also was brought by Rossi.

―Jouni

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

Puts the shuttle disasters in perspective... ie:  They weren't "disasters"
> -- they were more like "wrecks".
>

They were flight tests.

Those were prototypes. It turned out that was not a good design. See:

"Beam Me Out Of This Death Trap, Scotty"

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Jed,

A replication of my proof that a DC cheater current can not steal undetected 
power from a sine wave line source was completed.  I will make a further post 
explaining the particulars later.  This issue should be put to rest.  As you 
say, we know how to measure power accurately.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 9:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...


Jouni Valkonen  wrote:


However convincing proof, if that is desired, is just that ecat is made to do 
real work while it is completely unplugged.


Yes. If they could do this without melting the machine it would be a good idea. 
Since they already melted one, no one should doubt that will happen again.


 
 Simplest real work could be heating a pool of water. Even short heat after 
death event is convincing if hidden power sources are carefully searched.



WHY are you so certain that wattmeters do not work?!? Where does this weird 
notion come from? They are as reliable as any other modern instrument. There is 
no chance Rossi can fool one, and if the people doing the test have any doubt 
about that, they can bring a portable generator.


This notion that we cannot measure input electric power is irrational. It is 
nonsensical. If the input was close to the output, it might make sense, but it 
a factor of 3 or more smaller.


To put it another way, if you do not trust the wattmeter, why would you trust 
the IR camera or thermocouple? If Rossi can fool a wattmeter he can fool any 
instrument.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:

However convincing proof, if that is desired, is just that ecat is made to
> do real work while it is completely unplugged.


Yes. If they could do this without melting the machine it would be a good
idea. Since they already melted one, no one should doubt that will happen
again.



> Simplest real work could be heating a pool of water. Even short heat after
> death event is convincing if hidden power sources are carefully searched.
>

WHY are you so certain that wattmeters do not work?!? Where does this weird
notion come from? They are as reliable as any other modern instrument.
There is no chance Rossi can fool one, and if the people doing the test
have any doubt about that, they can bring a portable generator.

This notion that we cannot measure input electric power is irrational. It
is nonsensical. If the input was close to the output, it might make sense,
but it a factor of 3 or more smaller.

To put it another way, if you do not trust the wattmeter, why would you
trust the IR camera or thermocouple? If Rossi can fool a wattmeter he can
fool any instrument.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[James Bowery]

Puts the shuttle disasters in perspective... ie:  They weren't "disasters"
-- they were more like "wrecks".


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> David Roberson  wrote:
>
>
>> It might take a little time for Rossi to gain total control over his
>> device.  How would you like to have been the pilot of the first plane built
>> by the Wright brothers?
>>
>
> As I recall the Wrights trained 12 pilots in 1908, and 10 were killed
> within a year. Their first major celebrity customer was Charles Rolls of
> Rolls-Royce. He was killed in 1910 when the tail of the machine broke off.
>
> For all anyone knows, Rossi might be running similar risks today.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jouni Valkonen]

On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:
> Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat

Presenting skepticism is very healthy.

However convincing proof, if that is desired, is just that ecat is made to do 
real work while it is completely unplugged. Simplest real work could be heating 
a pool of water. Even short heat after death event is convincing if hidden 
power sources are carefully searched.

But Rossi has refused to unplug the device after December 2010 test that was 
conducted by Levi privately (IIRC). December 2010 test is still the most 
convincing test, but it again does require that Levi is genuinely independent 
scientist and he is not paid by Rossi.

―Jouni

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:


> It might take a little time for Rossi to gain total control over his
> device.  How would you like to have been the pilot of the first plane built
> by the Wright brothers?
>

As I recall the Wrights trained 12 pilots in 1908, and 10 were killed
within a year. Their first major celebrity customer was Charles Rolls of
Rolls-Royce. He was killed in 1910 when the tail of the machine broke off.

For all anyone knows, Rossi might be running similar risks today.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> And yes, there is a significant qualitative difference between COP of 6
> and COP of 2.5 in terms of market value. The HotCat could be on either end
> of that spectrum, based on what the last report indicated.
>

I am certain that you can have any COP you want with cold fusion. It is
just a matter of engineering. The present limitations have no bearing on
the potential, any more than 35 mph top speed of the 1905 Wright Flyer III
limited the future speed of airplanes.

Rossi accidentally achieved an infinite COP when his reactor melted.
Several other reactors have melted, exploded or vaporized.

All discussions of the COP and all concerns about it are bogus. This is
simply not an issue now, and it never has been.



> If the device cannot self-power . . .
>

I am certain it can. There is no reason to doubt that. The hard part is to
make it stop self-powering before it melts.



> But with a COP on the lower end, he probably is stuck with whatever
> AmpEnergo can scrape up.
>

If the industrialist and venture capitalists come to believe the Levi
report, Rossi will be offered billions of dollars. The COP does not make
the slightest difference.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Gibbs  wrote:


> We're talking about Rossi's device and whether it works, not whether
> CF/LENR/LENR+/Pixie-Mediated-Power/Whatever is real.
>

If it is real it is the most important advance in technology since the
discovery of fire. If the scientific community is convinced it is real,
every industrial corporation and university will be hard at work on this.
~$100 million per day will devoted to it.


If Rossi can make devices that demonstrably and reliably work and don't
> blow up, he proves the E-Cat is real. If they reliably blow up, he's in the
> armaments business.
>

It makes no difference whether Rossi can do this or not. I am sure that
someone can, because stable reactions have been demonstrated by
Fleischmann, Mizuno, Rossi and others. If it can be done once, in one lab,
then with enough funding and effort we can make it happen on demand a
billion times a day.

All he has to do is convince people it is real. The floodgates will open,
and problems like these will be solved overnight. If he has any viable IP
he will be richer than Bill Gates in a few years.

By the way, regarding armaments, some experts, including Teller and
Fleischmann, worried cold fusion might make a cheap, compact nuclear bomb.
Even if it cannot cause a nuclear explosion, there is no doubt it will
revolutionize every weapon and military system, as I described in my book.
Every existing weapon will be as obsolete as wooden ships were after the
battle between the Monitor and the Merrimack in 1862.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Mark,

It might take a little time for Rossi to gain total control over his device.  
How would you like to have been the pilot of the first plane built by the 
Wright brothers?  I have little doubt that great progress will be achieved over 
the next couple of years with Rossi's device and derivatives of it.  Patience 
is good.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Mark Gibbs 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 7:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


Mark Gibbs  wrote:





Ah, now we have it ... it's the questions of reproducability and 
controlability,  





But these questions have no bearing on whether the effect is real or not.




We're talking about Rossi's device and whether it works, not whether 
CF/LENR/LENR+/Pixie-Mediated-Power/Whatever is real. 


If Rossi can make devices that demonstrably and reliably work and don't blow 
up, he proves the E-Cat is real. If they reliably blow up, he's in the 
armaments business.


[mg]

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

> If Rossi can make devices that demonstrably and reliably work and don't blow
> up, he proves the E-Cat is real. If they reliably blow up, he's in the
> armaments business.

LOL!  Proving the reaction to be HIGHLY OVER UNITY!

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Mark Gibbs]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Mark Gibbs  wrote:
>
> Ah, now we have it ... it's the questions of reproducability and
>> controlability,
>>
>
> But these questions have no bearing on whether the effect is real or not.
>
> We're talking about Rossi's device and whether it works, not whether
CF/LENR/LENR+/Pixie-Mediated-Power/Whatever is real.

If Rossi can make devices that demonstrably and reliably work and don't
blow up, he proves the E-Cat is real. If they reliably blow up, he's in the
armaments business.

[mg]

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I'm hoping we can do something more dramatic, on a larger scale. Something
> like what the Japanese authorities did to the notorious criminal Ishikawa
> Goemon in 1594 would be ideal, but I guess that's out.

Raising the temperature a little bit at a time . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

:)

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jones Beene]

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

This would be nice. It would be a lot of fun. I personally would feel
gratified and pleased to see this. However, it would not convince a single
skeptic. They would simply say that all this equipment is fake or there is a
hidden wire or some other trick.

 

Frankly I don't see what purpose this test would serve at this stage in the
development. Can you tell us what this would show that the present tests do
not? 

 

Yes, self-power would convince many skeptics but not all - since the ways to
cheat have been minimized. Actually self-powering with an ORC genset and a
HotCat would probably convince a majority of present skeptics - all but the
Cude crowd.

 

And yes, there is a significant qualitative difference between COP of 6 and
COP of 2.5 in terms of market value. The HotCat could be on either end of
that spectrum, based on what the last report indicated. 

 

If the device cannot self-power, it is still valuable with a lower COP, the
proverbial hot water or space heater - but if it can self-power now, it
becomes an immediate TDI - Trillion Dollar Invention in the eyes many top
investors.

 

That is the purpose of going for it now. 

 

How much capital does Rossi need to fast tract it, or stated another way -
does a 63 year old inventor want to see his baby fully developed in the
marketplace during in his lifetime - or not?

 

Of course, the device under test would not be optimized at this stage, even
if it self-powers, so we would need to extrapolate - but closing the loop or
even getting close - would bring Rossi massive investment capital. 

 

But with a COP on the lower end, he probably is stuck with whatever
AmpEnergo can scrape up.

 

Jones

 

 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> It would be nice to get Infinity Turbine to donate a few weeks of testing
> time on their ORC device which had been modified with a DC generator
> driving a bank of Ultracaps.
>

This would be nice. It would be a lot of fun. I personally would feel
gratified and pleased to see this. However, it would not convince a single
skeptic. They would simply say that all this equipment is fake or there is
a hidden wire or some other trick.

Frankly I don't see what purpose this test would serve at this stage in the
development. Can you tell us what this would show that the present tests do
not? Would this raise your confidence in the results? If so, why? If you
suspect Rossi might be sneaking power in through the AC lines, surely it
would be easier to address this with something like a battery backup, a
generator, or a better watt meter.

I think this would be a distraction and a waste of money.

The skeptics would also say that any test conducted in Rossi's presence or
in his laboratory cannot be fully convincing. There is something be said
for that. I would prefer to see the gadget tested in an independent
laboratory. Heck I would prefer to see 10,000 copies of this device being
tested in laboratories all over the world.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jones Beene]

Dave,

 

It would be nice to get Infinity Turbine to donate a few weeks of testing time 
on their ORC device which had been modified with a DC generator driving a bank 
of Ultracaps. 

 

The caps would be sized so that there is maybe 15 minutes of cushion in the 
energy storage – but no batteries. Cree makes a 3-phase inverter that is 95+% 
efficient from DC. With this kind of setup the penalty for both storage and 
DC/AC conversions would be low – less than 10%.

 

With 6:1 gain and 21% OTC efficiency at 600C, there could be just enough to 
close the loop.

 

Jones

 

Here is the Cree demo of high efficiency DC/DC. As I understand it, DC/AC is at 
least this good or better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8F4s86d7PY

 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the 
loop.  Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job.

 

From: Jones Beene  

The reputed gain is so high – Rossi would be wise to forego calorimetry and go 
directly to conversion of heat to electricity.

 

Here is the device that could do that – ORC in a small format. This device is 
perfect for the HotCat.

 

http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/IT10_ORC_System.html

 

At 6:1 gain, Rossi should be able to close the loop.

 

 

From: mark.gi...@gmail.com 

 

Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the 
propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made 
irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other 
words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't 
have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still 
validate the claim of significant over unity energy output.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:


> Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his
> tea.
>

I'm hoping we can do something more dramatic, on a larger scale. Something
like what the Japanese authorities did to the notorious criminal Ishikawa
Goemon in 1594 would be ideal, but I guess that's out.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishikawa_Goemon

They still call old fashioned iron cauldron baths "Goemon" baths in his
honor:

http://dolphin2510.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-japanese-used-to-take-bath-goemon.html

This says they "used to take a bath" this way. Ahem. Some of us still do.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:



> Unfortunately, I think that the person who made the "cup of tea" bet has 
> passed on.

Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his tea.

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Gibbs  wrote:

Ah, now we have it ... it's the questions of reproducability and
> controlability,
>

But these questions have no bearing on whether the effect is real or not.

During the Vanguard era of US rocket development in the 1950s, rockets were
extremely difficult to reproduce and they were so badly controlled most of
them exploded. However, no one suggested that rockets do not exist.

Reproducibility and controllability have ZERO, ZIP, NO relevance to whether
the effect is real or not. They only determine whether its commercially
useful, or cost-effective. Rockets are not still not well controlled. They
often explode, so the insurance rates are high. You pay extra on your
satellite TV bill to cover this. Some types of semiconductors in the 1950s
had low reproducibility rates which meant they remained more expensive than
vacuum tubes for several years.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Gibbs  wrote:


> Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy
> without stopping would be pretty damn convincing.
>

Not really. The skeptics would come up with a hundred reasons why that was
faked. They would say this was actually two identical electric vehicles,
which were swapped out from time to time while passing through
tunnels. They will say the video record was faked.

The claim here is excess heat from a device with AC electric power input.
The best way to measure that is by using standard engineering methods for
measuring electricity and heat from HVAC systems. The best people to do
that are engineers. The best organization to evaluate such results -- best
by far -- is a place like Elforsk or EPRI. Not the APS or the American
Astronomical Society.

People who demand a stand alone, self powered reaction should pay for it. I
expect it would cost millions to make one that is safe.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Mark Gibbs]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:22 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:

> yes, calorimetry is not needed IF you believe the claims, methods, and the
> effect.
>

The claims are that the device produces significantly over unity, the
methods have been alluded to but Rossi is definitely not public with this
and he may well be lying (e.g. there may be no catalyst). The effect seems
to have been demonstrated by the tests.


> As you may know, I don't doubt the reality of CF/LENR in general.
> However, if you goal is to convince "non-believer" then it is best to avoid
> systems where you have to know the exact waveforms, cables, instruments,
> material emissivity's,.  you name it. Perhaps the reaction is
> controllable, perhaps not.  Perhaps the reproducibility between samples is
> solved, perhaps not.
>

Ah, now we have it ... it's the questions of reproducability and
controlability,

>
> Heating a pot/container of water from a standalone unit is the way to go
>  in my humble opinion.
>

Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy without
stopping would be pretty damn convincing.

[mg]

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the
> loop.  Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job.
>

Correctomundo. This will complicate matters. It probably means they need
batteries and inverters. As sure as day follows night, the skeptics will
say these inverters and batteries are fake, unnecessarily complicated, and
they are only there to hide fraud.

There was a time when this field desperately needed a standalone self
powered reactor to prove the reaction is real. That is because absolute
power was low, ranging from 5 to 100 W. However, now that Rossi has
developed high-powered reactors ranging from 500 to . . . 1 MW (I guess?)
the need for standalone reactors is reduced. High-power plus a large input
to output ratio together prove nearly everything that a smaller
self-sustaining reaction would prove. They make it obvious that with enough
engineering R&D a self-sustaining reactor can be made.

The only way these results could be wrong would be if Rossi has somehow
found a way to fool a watt meter. If he is capable of doing that he is also
capable of making something that looks like a self-sustaining demonstration
but is not.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

Dennis,

The best proof is one that has the least possibility of error.  Every 
complication that is added to the setup results in many more issues to question 
by the skeptics.  The technique used by the testers of the ECAT is good enough 
for any reasonable scientist to accept and all this non sense we are hearing 
from the skeptics is ridiculous.

You fail to realize that there is no way what so ever to meet their 
requirements since they do not believe LENR is possible.  Any test results will 
be found lacking by their measures.  The more complicated the test setup is, 
the more ways that they will suggest a scam is possible.

The latest report has been shown to be solid from a normal technical point of 
view.  For this reason, the skeptics now insist that a scam must be the answer. 
 They have failed to prove their position entirely, and most normal skeptics 
would realize that perhaps they were wrong in the beliefs.  Not this group.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: DJ Cravens 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 5:03 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



You may want to refigure that if you want to run for extended times- an Olympic 
pool (likely overkill) has a volume of 2.5 million liters and some are indoors 
and have covers.  ( I would just use bubble wrap) You could easily go long 
enough to be an order of mag or two above chemical. 
 
The advantage is if they are truly at > 3:1 then you only need to measure 1 
time and 1 temp for the output.  That is a lot fewer items. And indoor heated 
pools could give you a good control measure. 

 But it really doesn't matter, they will do what they do. They only need to 
make their sponsors happy not Crude.   I hope the best for them. 
 
D2
 


Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:46:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

DJ Cravens  wrote:



Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed.   Just heating a container of 
water - pool, spa, teapot



I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get an 
interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you would 
maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks. The body 
(the bath and its container) would be losing heat into the surroundings. It 
amounts to more or less the same thing they are doing now, with a bigger body 
and more thermal mass, plus evaporation and other complicated stuff. I do not 
see an advantage.
 

  

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

DJ Cravens  wrote:

You may want to refigure that if you want to run for extended times- an
> Olympic pool (likely overkill) has a volume of 2.5 million liters and some
> are indoors and have covers.
>

That would be extremely noisy, to say the least. Changes in air
temperature, humidity, sunlight, hours of day and other factors would swamp
the effects of a 900 W heater. That is like having 2 people swimming in the
pool. * I doubt you could detect the heat from that.

- Jed


* Swimming the breaststroke takes 475 W according to this source:

http://cnx.org/content/m42153/latest/?collection=col11406/latest

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

DJ Cravens  wrote:

That is not what I want to hear.
>

You do not want to hear that the cell will go out of control and melt? It
will though, whether you want to hear that or not. It has already melted.

I do not understand what you have in mind here. Nature allows us to do some
things and not others. We have to work with what nature allows, not what we
would wish for in an ideal universe.

As long as we are wishing, I wish there was a form of cold fusion that
directly produced electricity. That would sure be convenient! Now tell me:
what was the point of my wishful thinking? What purpose does it serve, to
wish for things we cannot have?

Obviously with more engineering R&D a self-sustaining Rossi reactor could
be made. This is just a matter of engineering. It would cost a great deal
of money and time. It would be a distraction. It would not prove anything
the present test does not prove. Mary Yugo would insist it is fake. Robert
Park would ignore it. Why bother? Just use a different watt meter next time
and all remaining questions vanish as surely as they would with a
self-sustaining reactor.



> that is what I am working toward.
> standalone and a cup of tea for NI
>

A standalone cup of tea would be marvelous, but far less convincing than
the test conducted by Levi et al. it would also be much convincing proof
that the effect can be made into a practical source of energy.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[DJ Cravens]

You may want to refigure that if you want to run for extended times- an Olympic 
pool (likely overkill) has a volume of 2.5 million liters and some are indoors 
and have covers.  ( I would just use bubble wrap) You could easily go long 
enough to be an order of mag or two above chemical. 
 
The advantage is if they are truly at > 3:1 then you only need to measure 1 
time and 1 temp for the output.  That is a lot fewer items. And indoor heated 
pools could give you a good control measure. 

 But it really doesn't matter, they will do what they do. They only need to 
make their sponsors happy not Crude.   I hope the best for them. 
 
D2
 
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:46:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

DJ Cravens  wrote:




Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed.   Just heating a container of 
water - pool, spa, teapot
I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get an 
interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you would 
maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks. The body 
(the bath and its container) would be losing heat into the surroundings. It 
amounts to more or less the same thing they are doing now, with a bigger body 
and more thermal mass, plus evaporation and other complicated stuff. I do not 
see an advantage.
  

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


>You do not need to measure flow rates if the effect is significant.
>>
>
> You don't need to measure it now. You have to depend on Drs. Stefan and
> Boltzmann being right. As for convection, you just gotta look up the
> numbers in an HVAC textbook.
>

I confused the issue a little here.

Dennis meant that you do not need to measure the inlet and outlet
temperatures to conduct flow calorimetry. You can simply circulate all the
water from a large body like a bath, going from bath to cell, and splosh
back into the bath. You then observe the terminal temperature of the bath,
comparing it to another bath with another heater. It is a giant
isoperibolic calorimeter at a moderate temperature. (Whereas the present
arrangement is a small, hot isoperibolic calorimeter.)

I meant that you do not need to worry about flow rates with the present
method. There is no flow involved. I also meant that you do not need to
worry about the airflow cooling the cell because you can look it up in a
book. Granted, it is not very accurate but HVAC engineers have been doing
this sort of thing for a long time, so it is reliable.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[DJ Cravens]

That is not what I want to hear. that is what I am working toward.
standalone and a cup of tea for NI  I doubt I will have it by then just a 
small 1:3 if I am lucky.  But if I can encourage one person to do experiments,
I will be happy and can crawl back under my rock.
 
But perhaps Defkalion will be blowing steam.  Who knows?
The last I heard Brillion was around 2:1 in liquid.
 
Perhaps it is time to step aside and let the commercial people do their thing.
 
 
D2

 
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:30:43 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
...

But these doubts are not rational. People who continue to have doubts with this 
test will have doubts with any other test including a standalone 
self-sustaining demonstration. 

- Jed
  

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[David Roberson]

It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the 
loop.  Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2013 4:20 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...



 
 
The reputed gain is sohigh – Rossi would be wise to forego calorimetry and go 
directly toconversion of heat to electricity.
 
Here is the device thatcould do that – ORC in a small format. This device is 
perfect for theHotCat.
 
http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/IT10_ORC_System.html
 
At 6:1 gain, Rossi shouldbe able to close the loop.
 
 

From:mark.gi...@gmail.com 

 

Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that'sthe one with the 
propeller on top) isn't the argument about the needfor calorimetry made 
irrelevant the amount of energy observed to havebeen generated? In other words, 
even with more precise measurements the exactenergy output couldn't have been 
something more than an order of magnitudelower which would still validate the 
claim of significant over unity energyoutput.

 

[mg]


 

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
R. W. Emerson wrote:


 


 
  
  
  
"Whatever course you decide upon, there is  always someone to tell you that you 
are wrong. There are always difficulties  arising which tempt you to believe 
that your critics are right. To map out a  course of action and follow it to an 
end requires courage..Do not go  where ever the path leads but go where 
there is none and leave a trail.  Ralph Waldo Emerson 
  
  
 



 


Fine except for the last sentence. Please do not selecta method of calorimetry 
where is no path! Select a conventional method.The most boring method you can 
find, with off-the-shelf instruments andtextbook techniques that no HVAC 
engineer would quarrel with.

 

Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proofyou can come up with.

 

- Jed

 


 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

DJ Cravens  wrote:

Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed.   Just heating a
> container of water - pool, spa, teapot
>

I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get
an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you
would maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks.
The body (the bath and its container) would be losing heat into the
surroundings. It amounts to more or less the same thing they are doing now,
with a bigger body and more thermal mass, plus evaporation and other
complicated stuff. I do not see an advantage.

A spa or a pond is not a simple thing to model.


   You do not need to measure flow rates if the effect is significant.
>

You don't need to measure it now. You have to depend on Drs. Stefan and
Boltzmann being right. As for convection, you just gotta look up the
numbers in an HVAC textbook.


It avoids all the % steam questions, the emissivity numbers, the air flow,
> the cameras..
>

It does not avoid the steam question! On the contrary, with a body water
you are right back to that problem, with evaporation. There are no serious
questions about emissivity, air flow, or cameras. The emissivity can be set
to 1 (worst case). The air flow comes out of an engineering textbook. We
know the camera and emissivity are right because the thermocouple confirms
them. All questions are addressed and all are closed.


It is about the simplest measure of heat.
>

The present method is the simplest. Using a body of hot water heated to
terminal temperature would be more complicated.

The present method is not the most accurate but I doubt that a large body
of water would be more accurate.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

DJ Cravens  wrote:


> yes, calorimetry is not needed IF you believe the claims, methods, and the
> effect.  As you may know, I don't doubt the reality of CF/LENR in general.
> However, if you goal is to convince "non-believer" then it is best to avoid
> systems where you have to know the exact waveforms, cables, instruments,
> material emissivity's,.
>

You do not need to know the exact waveforms. I can tell by looking that the
power is off most of the time. Whether it is off 50% or 70% of the time
makes no difference. You do not need to know the exact emissivity. You can
assume the reactor is a black box, with the IR camera parameter set to 1,
while you can ignore the thermocouple reading. You still get overwhelming
excess power.

The whole point of this method is that it requires no exact measurements
although they did in fact make exact measurements. If this does not
convince a nonbeliever that person does not understand elementary 19th
century physics.

Flow calorimetry has much to be said for it but it is more complicated and
less believable than this. A lot more can go wrong with it, and usually
does go wrong with it for the first several weeks.



>   you name it. Perhaps the reaction is controllable, perhaps not.
>

Since the cell melted the reaction is obviously not well controlled.



> Again, from my vantage point, the best demo would be a stand alone that
> does not require any calculations or understanding of how a specific
> instrument work or was used. That  should become possible somewhere around
> a COP of 5 to 10.  Until then there will be doubts.
>

But these doubts are not rational. People who continue to have doubts with
this test will have doubts with any other test including a standalone
self-sustaining demonstration.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[DJ Cravens]

bob park
 
> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:16:16 -0700
> From: a...@well.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
> 
> > Unfortunately, I think that the person who made the "cup of tea" bet
> > has passed on.
> > (My forgetory will produce his name in about 10 minutes while I'm
> > doing something else)
> 
> It wasn't tea .. it was a bet by a professor that would be paid off when a 
> cold fusion device delivered 1 kWh to the grid, or was available at the local 
> hardware store.
> 
> His name STILL eludes me !!!
> 
  

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "DJ Cravens" 
> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 1:22:05 PM

> And no, I don't think that they were over unity by more than an order
> of magnitude- Only a factor of perhaps 6. I need to go back and
> check that.

The COP was 6 (Dec) and 3 (March).

The order of magnitude was energy density over chemistry, making the most 
conservative estimate -- eg using the entire weight or volume of the inner 
cylinder, rather than just the pixie dust. 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Gibbs  wrote:

Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the
> propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made
> irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated?
>

Yes. But power, not energy. If the difference between input and output had
been small, than it might have been an error (with zero real excess power)
which over a long time adds up to a large amount of bogus excess energy.

The difference between 300 W and 900 W is so large that any reasonable
method of measuring it, when performed by experts, is irrefutable. This
method is good because it is simple, employing only a watt meter, an IR
camera, a thermocouple, and a calibration of a blank cell. Skeptics have
not found a plausible error. They never will. There are no plausible
errors, unless you want to toss out the Stefan-Boltzmann law. (Yugo said it
is "too complicated.") There is only the remote possibility that Rossi has
discovered a way to fool a commercial off-the-shelf watt meter.


In other words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output
> couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which
> would still validate the claim of significant over unity energy output.
>

Right. But, as I said, that is because the instantaneous power is
high. Also because all measurements are conservative. In every case in
which there is a choice of methods, one which would underestimate power and
another that might overestimate it, they chose the method which
underestimates. The actual power must be considerably higher. It cannot be
lower. Not if you believe elementary concepts such as the fact that a
cylinder viewed from the side is not a flat surface.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[DJ Cravens]

yes, calorimetry is not needed IF you believe the claims, methods, and the 
effect.  As you may know, I don't doubt the reality of CF/LENR in general.  
However, if you goal is to convince "non-believer" then it is best to avoid 
systems where you have to know the exact waveforms, cables, instruments, 
material emissivity's,.  you name it. Perhaps the reaction is controllable, 
perhaps not.  Perhaps the reproducibility between samples is solved, perhaps 
not. 
 
Heating a pot/container of water from a standalone unit is the way to go  
in my humble opinion. 
 
Perhaps there will be a commercial product in the near future or not.  Perhaps 
there will be a "real" company that will come out and endorse the devices in 
the near future, perhaps not.
Until that time their will be vocal skeptics. And the more complex and 
calculation based the demo, the less likely it will be to accepted by the 
"skeptics".  
 
Again, from my vantage point, the best demo would be a stand alone that does 
not require any calculations or understanding of how a specific instrument work 
or was used.  That  should become possible somewhere around a COP of 5 to 10.  
Until then there will be doubts. 
I think we are within striking distance of that.  (note at COP 6 you would need 
a 17% eff. engine - that is will within range if you are working between 300C 
and 25C). 
 
And no, I don't think that they were over unity by more than an order of 
magnitude-  Only a factor of perhaps 6. I need to go back and check that. 

 D2
From: mgi...@gibbs.com
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 12:55:19 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the 
propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made 
irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other 
words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't 
have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still 
validate the claim of significant over unity energy output.


[mg]
  

RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Jones Beene]

 

 

The reputed gain is so high - Rossi would be wise to forego calorimetry and
go directly to conversion of heat to electricity.

 

Here is the device that could do that - ORC in a small format. This device
is perfect for the HotCat.

 

http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/IT10_ORC_System.html

 

At 6:1 gain, Rossi should be able to close the loop.

 

 

From: mark.gi...@gmail.com 

 

Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the
propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made
irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other
words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't
have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still
validate the claim of significant over unity energy output.

 

[mg]

 

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

R. W. Emerson wrote:

 


"Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that
you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to
believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and
follow it to an end requires courage..Do not go where ever the path
leads but go where there is none and leave a trail. Ralph Waldo Emerson 

 

Fine except for the last sentence. Please do not select a method of
calorimetry where is no path! Select a conventional method. The most boring
method you can find, with off-the-shelf instruments and textbook techniques
that no HVAC engineer would quarrel with.

 

Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with.

 

- Jed

 

 

Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

[Alan Fletcher]

> Unfortunately, I think that the person who made the "cup of tea" bet
> has passed on.
> (My forgetory will produce his name in about 10 minutes while I'm
> doing something else)

It wasn't tea .. it was a bet by a professor that would be paid off when a cold 
fusion device delivered 1 kWh to the grid, or was available at the local 
hardware store.

His name STILL eludes me !!!