Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 12:07 AM 6/18/2011, Rich Murray wrote: Say, you two, what do you mean by, Well, Rich, your underpants are showing. ? I asking, because I don't get it... It means that your personal bias is visible, what's underneath your opinions. I meant that I'm sure there's no excess heat in the Rossi devices, and I mean it when I said I regret that. I prefer to state that I'm sure, rather than hedge my bets. You imagine that your own certainty is about the thing rather than about yourself. Sure means certainty. Given how little information we have, certainty is much more a product of expectation than of observation. Certainty, in this environment, reflects internal closure of issues. Internal closure is placing a bet. Nothing wrong with placing a bet, it's a choice. If you are not hedging your bets, then you are betting without hedge, i.e., placing all your eggs in one basket, the basket of Bad Science, Bogosity, Error. I imagine that Rossi and associates are genuinely, innocently self-deluded. I can imagine all kinds of things, but as soon as I treat my imagination as if it were observation, I'm sunk, stuck. I might happen to be right, on occasion, as to ultimate fact, but procedurally I'm wrong. My approach will miss things, important things, transformative things, things that break the boxes we live in. Skepticism at this point, about Rossi, is quite understandable, and is not pseudoskepticism when it is not based on certainty of impossibility. Pseudoskepticism is pseudo because it forgets to be skeptical about itself. A real skeptic is skeptical about his or her own skepticism, which is why real skeptics are curious, at least to a degree. They may not put a lot of energy into investigation, that's a bet that we all must consider, and we put significant energy into what we imagine might be fruitful. It's an error, though, to take the necessity of this kind of betting and turn it into an accusation against others, which is one of the things that pseudoskeptics do. Not only is the field completely bogus pseudoscience, but anyone who even thinks, for a moment, that it might be real, even gives someone else a forum to explain the evidence they have found, is self-deluded. With no evidence as to *that* other than the pseudoskeptics own certainty. Skeptical certainty is an oxymoron. So, the parade leads to the moment when a little boy, underpants showing, cries, The Emperor has no clothes! I've been wanting to believe, too. Maybe that's part of the problem, Rich. You are looking for a reason to believe, but prematurely judging the evidence, because you want answers. Genuine skepticism requires high levels of patience, requires accepting that one may never know. The Fleischmann-Pons effect was extremely difficult to set up. We now know a lot of reasons why this was so, and with what has been elaborated, the entire body of experimental evidence fits together like a giant jigsaw puzzle. But to see this can take massive exposure to the data, without classifying it into junk and good. Or, for that matter, negative and positive. Experimental results are just experimental results, what happened. Where we get into trouble is in the interpretation. What does this mean? As we read the reports, if we classify them into Positive and Negative, we then build up some kind of voting system, and we look for a majority winner. But that's not science, it's politics, and has little to do with truth. The truth is the experimental results, we get no closer to truth than that. Theory and meaning are human inventions, supplied by us, they are not a part of reality itself. As I'm hearing frequently now -- Rich, you probably know where I'm getting these ideas -- human beings are meaning-making machines. It's what we do, and we are good at it. However, it also can trap us, when we confuse the meanings we have created with what actually happened. If we think that there were 500 negative papers and 600 positive papers, what's our conclusion? Easy: preponderance of the 'evidence' is positive. But what if there is a possible interpretation that all the papers confirm? Isn't this much more likely to be the truth, i.e, of higher predictive value, as well as higher value in organizing data and experience? That kind of interpretation becomes possible when one becomes familiar with the entire corpus of work, and the entire effort at theorizing regarding it. I found, at the LANR Colloquium last weekend, that I heard a number of theorists discuss the physics of cold fusion, each with his own approach. And they were dovetailing, all leading toward the same conclusions, a picture of what happened, with experiment and theory. Peter Hagelstein presented some theoretical analysis of models regarding deuterium loading in SRI experiments. He pointed out that the models classically used by electrochemists -- and the electrochemists, at least some, still consider
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
F.lii Rossi business is really about tyres http://www.fllirossi-tyre.com/ Probably they share a portion of the same industrial building complex with our Rossi 2011/6/17 Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com - Original Message From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, June 15, 2011 10:58:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative At 02:30 PM 6/14/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: Since the Widom-Larsen theory explains the positive results, can it also explain the negative results. A good theory should be able to do both. I don't see W-L theory explaining positive results, at all. If so, it's been very badly explained! There are lots observations explained here: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml#slides Krivit completely failed to be the investigative journalist, asking hard questions, with W-L theory. Yes, a good theory would explain both positive and negative results. Nothing is really close to that yet, though what I heard at MIT last weekend does give me some hope. Among the many things WL say their theory can explain is why D kills the reaction in Ni-H systems and why H kills the reaction in D-Pd systems. Kirvit does include some informal criticism of the WL theory on his website, http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml Harry Still, Peter Hagelstein was struggling with models for electrochemical loading. Apparently the standard models suck, to use a technical term. Peter has more or less figured out why, but it's very difficult to model, since it depends on quite a chaotic and very individual process, for each cathode, as it develops what he calls internal leaks, that is, leaks into internal cavities and domain boundaries, that eventually communicate to the outside. Put another way, the palladium can develop a high surface area, with most of the surface being internal and not exposed to the electrolyte and thus to loading, only to deloading.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-17 04:57, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I'd say, so far, so good. Let's hope he gets some decent answers. Krivit's preliminary report has been harshly criticized by Rossi: * * * http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=12#comment-46645 Dear Mr Rossi, Can you respond to the recent assertions by Steven B Krivit that the method in which the steam may have been measured previously is potentially giving incorrect measurements of the power capability of the e-cat. Krivit says in his blog post. “I discussed the crucial difference in steam enthalpy calculations by mass versus by volume with Levi on Wednesday afternoon. Based on his initial response, I could not be sure if he had previously understood the potential impact.” http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/ I am hoping you can assure us that his concerns are invalid. Best regards, Craig * * * http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=12#comment-46691 Dear Craig: Mr Krivit has understood nothing of what he saw, from what I have read in his ridiculous report… This guy has seen for half an hour an E-Cat in the factory where we make many tests, made some questions to Prof. Levi, Prof. Focardi and me. Evidently has understood nothing, perhaps for the short time we gave him, also because we have to work. Prof. Levi has explained very well to him how the measures have been made and the importance of the issue. He has explained very well that the percentage of uncondensed water in the steam has been measured in weight (in volume is impossible, for various reasons), and he also got confirmation of this from a specialist from whom he has taken indipendent counsel. Nevertheless, he has understood nothing, or wanted not to understand, for reasons he better knows. Our tests have been performed by Physics Professors, who know how to make measures , and I am measuring the performance every day on 300 reactors. In any case we will start our 1 MW plant in october and we will see how it works. Of course I assure his considerations are invalid, but I want to say more: our products on the market will confirm this. Probably this journalist has been sent by someone that wants to dwarf our work. He also tried to blackmail prof. Levi, and Levi already has given to his attorney due. information . Warm Regards, A.R. * * * Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
If the Rossi units heat water to the boiling point, it can be used to heat homes...we can collectively nail down specifics on output by the time these units are made available for 'field testing' inside homes and offices. Our network in D.C. will pin down either the Greek or Italian embassy to bring one or more of these Rossi units to the embassy in D.C. and heat it over the winter, preferably at either the Silver or Gold Salon event. Validating advanced energy technologies is always likened unto herding cats...not sure why, but that's par for the course. So much attention is being focused on this technology, that the matter of 'valid' vs. 'invalid' will be resolved one way or the other by the end of the year...specific kW output is a little more squishy, obviously, until a decent independent validation is presented. The burden of proof lies with the inventor, since outside parties are holding the purse strings. As an Army bloke, we just look for the 80% solution. Rossi appears to have that locked in...APPEARS. If it were my technology, irrefutable independent validation would be the first step, and this phase of disclosure is being managed about as well as the Pons Fleischmann fiasco in 1989. Our D.C. network's timing is later in this game than most who are watching the Rossi saga unfold. The stage is set to bring this technology forward in aprovablemanner by the end of the year once Rossi gets his ducks in a row; and our network is in a position to assist as needed when the time comes. On 2011-06-17 04:57, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I'd say, so far, so good. Let's hope he gets some decent answers. Krivit's preliminary report has been harshly criticized by Rossi: * * * http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=12#comment-46645
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Krivit extorted Levi?!? Did he leave his meds at home? T
RE: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
That's ridiculous... I highly doubt that Krivit did anything like that... What is more likely is that Levi misunderstood something that Krivit said due to the language barrier. Steve mentioned in his report that he felt Levi had trouble understanding some elements of what he was saying. Interesting... -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 5:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative Krivit extorted Levi?!? Did he leave his meds at home? T
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: That's ridiculous... I highly doubt that Krivit did anything like that... What is more likely is that Levi misunderstood something that Krivit said due to the language barrier. Steve mentioned in his report that he felt Levi had trouble understanding some elements of what he was saying. Interesting... Or even a cultural barrier. We had a vice president who was released because he insulted an Emir in Dubai. When he told me what he said, I understood how he meant it; but, he is employed elsewhere regardless. T
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
From Terry: Krivit extorted Levi?!? I doubt that. Nevertheless, it would seem obvious that both Levi and Rossi are pissed off as a result of their contact with Krivit. At present we don't know why. We don't know the specifics. Perhaps Krivit will eventually clarify his POV on this matter at New Energy Times. Meanwhile, it would seem that Levi is taking his own measures. While all of this sounds rather dramatic (certainly at the moment) I suspect what actually transpired between Krivit, Levi, and Rossi will come down to nothing more than personal interpretation. I suspect it will soon blow over as more momentous news forces personal interpretation out of the limelight. The impression I'm left with is that perhaps Rossi Levi may have had second thoughts soon after granting Krivit an interview many months ago. (Perhaps they didn't even know at the time they granted Krivit an interview of his strong support of the Widdom-Larsen theory, but I really dunno.) However, they couldn't honorably back out of a promised interview, not without creating additional bad press that they could not afford to generate right now. They know Krivit has a newsletter and a blog site where personal impressions are reported on. They realize Krivit has a readership. Personal impressions posted at blog sites can generate both good press as well as extremely bad press. This is mere speculation on my part but it seems to me that Rossi (and Levi) may have attempted to minimize their interactions with Krivit by granting him the equivalent of a time-constrained bare-bones tour of the premises, as well as a plain vanilla interview. I can sympathize with Krivit's efforts. I'm sure he put a lot of planning into it. I'm sure it generated a strong sense of high anticipation, one that Krivit hoped would soon bare considerable fruit. I know I would have held high expectations. I suspect that if I were in Krivit's shoes, and particularly while I was being given the tour, I would have sensed the fact that I was probably being given the brush off. That would have pissed me off. While it always remains the goal that every investigative reporter tries to remain impartial on what they observe and subsequently report on, personal impressions disappointment (flavored by a little bit of ego) can always creep in between the cracks. Nobody is immune to the flaws of human nature. Certainly not me. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-17 16:22, Mark Iverson wrote: That's ridiculous... I highly doubt that Krivit did anything like that... What is more likely is that Levi misunderstood something that Krivit said due to the language barrier. Steve mentioned in his report that he felt Levi had trouble understanding some elements of what he was saying. Interesting... Regarding that, this an open letter (in English) from Giuseppe Levi to Steven Krivit that just got posted on 22passi (I feel it might be subject to slight grammer/wording changes, so I'm not copy/pasting it here). It appears that he is not pleased of Krivit's preliminary travel report too: Short URL: http://goo.gl/2vr0M http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone-3.html Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 05:45 AM 6/17/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-17 04:57, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I'd say, so far, so good. Let's hope he gets some decent answers. Krivit's preliminary report has been harshly criticized by Rossi: Look, it's obvious: Rossi is either crazy, or crazy like a fox. Hard to tell the difference. Krivit may be obnoxious, sometimes, but I rather doubt he tried to blackmail anyone. I suspect that, instead, he ran into a brick wall, and pointed out that this is what he'd report. Did he ask for money? That would be blackmail! http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=12#comment-46691 Dear Craig: Mr Krivit has understood nothing of what he saw, from what I have read in his ridiculous report This guy has seen for half an hour an E-Cat in the factory where we make many tests, made some questions to Prof. Levi, Prof. Focardi and me. Evidently has understood nothing, perhaps for the short time we gave him, also because we have to work. Can't have it both ways. Krivit indeed didn't see enough, that's what he was complaining about! Prof. Levi has explained very well to him how the measures have been made and the importance of the issue. He has explained very well that the percentage of uncondensed water in the steam has been measured in weight (in volume is impossible, for various reasons), and he also got confirmation of this from a specialist from whom he has taken indipendent counsel. According to? What methods were used? Why is a demo set up in such a way as to make it impossible to determine the answers to these questions immediately and obviously? Does Rossi expect that a journalist will simply take assertions as if they were facts? I understand that Rossi has reasons to avoid making everything plain and clear. However, that doesn't allow him to impugn the integrity of a journalist. It makes him an asshole, even if he turns out to be a rich one. Nevertheless, he has understood nothing, or wanted not to understand, for reasons he better knows. Our tests have been performed by Physics Professors, who know how to make measures , and I am measuring the performance every day on 300 reactors. Great. But that's Rossi's say-so, not something demonstrated or shown. Where are the results from these 300 reactors? Surely Rossi understands why people would be skeptical about these claims! If he doesn't understand, that makes me worried in a whole new way! In any case we will start our 1 MW plant in october and we will see how it works. Indeed. For the world, we wish him success. But if I were being asked to put money in this, and I was fed bullshit like Rossi's response here, I'd stay far away. Let's hope, for the sake of Ampenergo and Defkalion and the Greek government, that they've been shown much better! Of course I assure his considerations are invalid, but I want to say more: our products on the market will confirm this. No, his concerns are *valid.* That doesn't mean that the E-Cat doesn't work, it means that something has been missing from the public demonstrations. And those physics professors are aware of this, to a degree, as well, at least the Swedes are. There are aspects to this which are difficult to quantify, someone who, for example, watched the outlet hose closely might be convinced, from visual observation, that this was entirely vapor, with practically no liquid water. If the hose went right into the drain, impossible. Probably this journalist has been sent by someone that wants to dwarf our work. He also tried to blackmail prof. Levi, and Levi already has given to his attorney due. information . Krivit is well-known. There are problems with Krivit, to be sure, but blackmail? I don't think so. Wants to dwarf our work? While such people may well exist -- wouldn't you want to produce better results than Rossi? -- I think he means minimize or discredit, not dwarf. No, Krivit would want this to be real, he thinks it would vindicate his positions on cold fusion theory. But Krivit also has a view of himself as a fearless investigative reporter, which can be a problem sometimes, but which can also be useful when he doesn't go too far in hyping the negative because of the shock value of lurid reporting. Krivit has raised valid questions, no doubt about it. I'm not claiming there are no answers, but to attack him merely for asking? That's beyond the pale. Rossi should apologize, not that I expect him to care about my opinion. But he might. I'm told he's a decent sort, personally.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Abd wrote: I understand that Rossi has reasons to avoid making everything plain and clear. However, that doesn't allow him to impugn the integrity of a journalist. It makes him an asshole, even if he turns out to be a rich one. I suspect Rossi and Levi also feel their integrity has been impugned by Steven's prelimenary report. The steam issue is all about integrity at this point. The integrity of those who are expected to accept the measurements vs. the integrity of those whose ability to make the measurements is questioned. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 11:38 AM 6/17/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Regarding that, this an open letter (in English) from Giuseppe Levi to Steven Krivit that just got posted on 22passi (I feel it might be subject to slight grammer/wording changes, so I'm not copy/pasting it here). It appears that he is not pleased of Krivit's preliminary travel report too: Short URL: http://goo.gl/2vr0M http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone-3.html Well, I'll copy it: Dear, Mr. Krivit I have carefully read http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/your preliminary report on your travel in Bologna. Your report clearly demonstrates that you have not understood anything of what you have seen and what we have explained you. First of all the story about the steam. As the signature in my email says I got a PhD in Physics years ago. This means that I have totally understood the difference between residual water in steam as fraction of mass or volume. As I have unsuccessfully tried to explain you : 1) The plots you were showing are well known and you can find them in any manual of physical chemistry. They apply when you measure the quantity of steam present as % of VOLUME. 2) As I have told you many times, Dr. Galantini, the expert chemist that was in charge, has done a measure as percent of MASS. As Professor Zanchini has told you the same day we met, one of the crucial informations you have omitted from your preliminary report, a fraction of water in the steam, measured by MASS as we have done, would reduce the amount of measured energy in a linear way. So our calculation and our analysis is correct. Because you: Omitted part of information you had, insulted me (and my University) trying to say that I'm not prepared in my field, tried (just tried) to scare me and put me under psychological pressure in order to obtain so far undisclosed data, I will not send you any other information. Regards, Dr. G.Levi It would be foolish to speculate much on what actually happened in the private interview, but I'll guess that Krivit has an audio recording. Nevertheless, fools rush in My first reaction to the Levi comments are about the claim that Krivit tried (just tried) to scare me and put me under psychological pressure in order to obtain so far undisclosed data. That's mind reading, unless the evidence was crystal clear, like Krivit saying You tell me your secret data or I'll ruin you! or something like that. If Krivit did say something like that it would merely be colossally stupid. Rather, I expect that Krivit did press for details, it's what I'd expect. And that pushing for details might have been culturally outside of norms, perhaps Krivit was expected to be more polite. I've seen Krivit be, shall we say, pushy, even by American standards. Now, Levi is, on the face, reacting to the travel blog, the preliminary report, but it's pretty clear that Levi is also reacting to his own personal impression of the interview. Krivit may have clumsily presented standard information about steam volume, explaining his own concerns, with Levi taking this as He thinks I'm an idiot. I've seen that kind of thing happen! Here is the Krivit report again: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/ It includes this: The primary validity of the E-Cat trio's dramatic energy claim is highly contingent on and derived from the heat output which they calculate indirectly from a claimed full or near-full vaporization of 100-degree water to steam. Complete vaporization of 100-degree water into steam requires the complete absence of suspended water droplets in steam. The water droplets suspended in the steam may be measured on a volumetric, or possibly, on a mass basis. The difference is crucial, because a measurement by mass has a linear effect on the output enthalpy, and a measurement by volume has more of an exponential effect. Volumetrically, a mere five percent of water in steam reduces the vaporization enthalpy to a trivial level. Even one percent of water in the steam will make a major reduction in the Rossi-Focardi-Levi claims. As I understand the matter, this is true in itself. The statements are properly qualified. The mass per unit volume of steam is far smaller than the mass per unit volume of water, so Krivit wants to know if the steam quality is determined based on mass or volume. Reasonable question, I'd think. My full report will include a detailed assessment of their methodology, and, as much as they will provide, their data. In other words, the travel report is, as the title says, preliminary, just his immediate impressions. Levi reacts to it as if it is a definitive, final report. The steam and/or water that comes immediately out of the E-Cat is hidden from sight because the outlet from the E-Cat
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Harry wrote: Abd wrote: I understand that Rossi has reasons to avoid making everything plain and clear. However, that doesn't allow him to impugn the integrity of a journalist. It makes him an asshole, even if he turns out to be a rich one. I suspect Rossi and Levi also feel their integrity has been impugned by Steven's prelimenary report. The steam issue is all about integrity at this point. The integrity of those who are expected to accept the measurements vs. the integrity of those whose ability to make the measurements is questioned. A lack of confidence and security amongst all those involved is what probably motivates the emphasis on integrity. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
About those pseudoskeptics who doubt the dryness of the steam. Why they do not just boil water on the stove and then calculate the energy concumption from water used. If the setup resembles Rossi's setup, then it would be child's play to calculate probable error margins. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
How easy is it really to get steam from 300 Watts only? The difference between 12kW and 300W must be obvious, even for the naked eye. And no reports on input power? Is it measured at the plug, before whatever electronics he uses? Or at the input in the reactor? If the latest and if that is RF/pulsed there is definitely a measurement issue there, much more difficult than measuring steam. BB On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: About those pseudoskeptics who doubt the dryness of the steam. Why they do not just boil water on the stove and then calculate the energy concumption from water used. If the setup resembles Rossi's setup, then it would be child's play to calculate probable error margins. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 11-06-17 02:20 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Krivit has raised valid questions, no doubt about it. I'm not claiming there are no answers, but to attack him merely for asking? That's beyond the pale. Maybe. It's also typical of charlatans. The saga of Rossi and the Reactors has become surpassingly complex, with many players, many companies (a number of which are apparently located at the same address), what appear to be a lot of dollars changing hands, and with some fervent believers asserting that only an imbecile could doubt that his reactor is the Real McCoy. None the less, there are still a number of annoying red flags flying.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
The question was: are these 800 W the heating power for on or more Ecat? Passerini says that the current of 3.5 A (= 800 W) is related to one Ecat: Se scrivo l'E-Cat in funzione e non gli E-Cat in funzione ci sarà un motivo no!? (If I am writing E-Cat functioning and not E-Cats functioning, there has a reason, right?) (This is a translation from the Italian language into English by a German..) Passerini adds, that the second control switch (the blue power control box has 12 control switches. Two were used during the last experiments) was in position 9 (maximum). He does not say anything about the left control switch, but a picture shows also a 9 for the left swith (and a 4 for the right switch). So, probably both were in „9“ position. These „small“ Ecats have two mains cables, one for each of the two heating resistors. The old (big) Ecat had 5 mains lines for 5 resistors (1500 W). On one of the pictures we can see the famous pump. It can be seen that P18. The potentiometer (upper knob) regulating the volume for each stroke is not set to the maximum value (2 ml), but to a much lower value. I guess something around 0.6 ml per stroke. I cant read the value of the inferior potentiometer regulating the stroke frequency. It seems to be set to 80% of 100 Hz (=80 Hz. So, in this case we would expect aprox. 50 ml / minute = 30 litres / hour). This is very important in order to estimate the water throuput. If Rossis warranty claim of a six fold energy gain (do you remember?) is correct, each Ecat should deliver 800 W x 6 = 4800 W. But witness Krivit says: I could see some white steam slowly exiting from the hose. At 4.8 kW ? I think the „blackmal“ – story is related to the raw data of the january and february experiments done by Levi. Levi says in his report of 21 of january that these data were lost. But, and that is very strange, Krivit writes that Levi agreed to send him these „lost“ data. Krivit wanted these data before he left Italy. Perhaps Levi understood this as a blackmail and called for this lawyer. Angela -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 11-06-17 01:36 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: OK, Everyone appears to be angry at Krivit but to be fair to the guy his line of questioning did seem to get back directly to the point where we left it on Vortex - My recollection was that we decided the steam measurement was an unreliable calculation but that the experiment with only a 5 degree increase in water temperature proved there was real thermal gain. Was this difference between mass and volumetric methods of measuring steam energy already resolved? Levi and Rossi are reacting like this was already abundantly clear but I really don't recall this issue as ever have been put to bed. Did I miss something? Don't think so. AFAIK there has never been a clear statement of the exact method used to measure the dryness of the steam, nor any disclosure of the raw data on which the dry steam conclusion was based. Rossi's defense was pure appeal to authority -- an expert made measurements and said it was dry, so it's dry, and please stop asking about it. No data on which the conclusion was based has ever been forthcoming. IMHO, based on a careful perusal of the one clear effluent temperature graph which I've seen, the steam was about as dry as the River Charles. But that's just a humble opinion from a non-expert, and in any case I haven't got the time to post the reasoning which leads to it. (It's largely visual and documenting it would require drawing pictures, which I haven't done.)
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Fran, You summed it up quite well... I think the overall concensus of those vorts who have discussed the e-Cat tests agree that the dryness of the steam is a MAJOR source of concern and there are INADEQUATE explanations from the Rossi camp as to that issue. Steve was pushing hard to make sure that that issue was understood by Levi/Rossi and an adequate explanation was returned. I don't think he got what he, and most of us, wanted... However, what I'd like to see now is some discussion from the collective about Levi's written response, aside from its contentious nature, and to have fellow vorts answer these questions: 1) Does Levi, et.al., understand the importance of the dry steam issue? 2) If the answer to #1 is YES, then do you feel that adequate care was taken in the tests we've seen to establish that the steam was truly dry? 3) Has this recent exchange caused by Krivit's visit changed your opinion at all? Good or bad... -Mark -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X [mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:36 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative OK, Everyone appears to be angry at Krivit but to be fair to the guy his line of questioning did seem to get back directly to the point where we left it on Vortex - My recollection was that we decided the steam measurement was an unreliable calculation but that the experiment with only a 5 degree increase in water temperature proved there was real thermal gain. Was this difference between mass and volumetric methods of measuring steam energy already resolved? Levi and Rossi are reacting like this was already abundantly clear but I really don't recall this issue as ever have been put to bed. Did I miss something? Fran -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 11:39 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative On 2011-06-17 16:22, Mark Iverson wrote: That's ridiculous... I highly doubt that Krivit did anything like that... What is more likely is that Levi misunderstood something that Krivit said due to the language barrier. Steve mentioned in his report that he felt Levi had trouble understanding some elements of what he was saying. Interesting... Regarding that, this an open letter (in English) from Giuseppe Levi to Steven Krivit that just got posted on 22passi (I feel it might be subject to slight grammer/wording changes, so I'm not copy/pasting it here). It appears that he is not pleased of Krivit's preliminary travel report too: Short URL: http://goo.gl/2vr0M http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone-3.html Cheers, S.A.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
1) Does Levi, et.al., understand the importance of the dry steam issue? They may be afraid to think about this show-stopping issue. 2) If the answer to #1 is YES, then do you feel that adequate care was taken in the tests we've seen to establish that the steam was truly dry? Maybe they're in denial and so have not taken adequate care. 3) Has this recent exchange caused by Krivit's visit changed your opinion at all? Good or bad... It's made me more sure that there is no excess heat. On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Fran, You summed it up quite well... I think the overall concensus of those vorts who have discussed the e-Cat tests agree that the dryness of the steam is a MAJOR source of concern and there are INADEQUATE explanations from the Rossi camp as to that issue. Steve was pushing hard to make sure that that issue was understood by Levi/Rossi and an adequate explanation was returned. I don't think he got what he, and most of us, wanted... However, what I'd like to see now is some discussion from the collective about Levi's written response, aside from its contentious nature, and to have fellow vorts answer these questions: 1) Does Levi, et.al., understand the importance of the dry steam issue? 2) If the answer to #1 is YES, then do you feel that adequate care was taken in the tests we've seen to establish that the steam was truly dry? 3) Has this recent exchange caused by Krivit's visit changed your opinion at all? Good or bad... -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-15 00:47, Akira Shirakawa wrote: A week of news is incoming, apparently: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/e-cat-settimana-di-novita-in-arrivo.html More Google-translated info from 22passi: http://goo.gl/FvMnO Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 03:43 PM 6/17/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: About those pseudoskeptics who doubt the dryness of the steam. Why they do not just boil water on the stove and then calculate the energy concumption from water used. If the setup resembles Rossi's setup, then it would be child's play to calculate probable error margins. Jouni, a real skeptic will ask about the dryness of the steam. A pseudoskeptic believes that the thing is bogus, from the outset, so will simply assert that there is a problem with the steam. No, boiling water on the stove does not actually resemble the setup, as far as we can tell. When you boil water on a stove, do you have a hose running from the pot to the kitchen sink? If you did, are you aware that you could appear to boil the water rapidly if, say, the water is propelled by steam pressure out through the hose? This is a clue to a possible problem! Rossi says that there is a safety issue with pulling the hose out of the drain. That can only mean to me one thing: this thing can spit water. Whether or not it could do that, and how much it would do that, would depend on the internal design, which we are not given to know. It's a poor excuse, because there would be a way to arrange the hose so it would be safe if it spits water, the water would just go into a container, where it could be measured Rossi obviously doesn't want to take this relatively simple step. Why not? Jouni, do you understand this? Imagine a pot on the stove, and it has water in it, and an outlet below the water level on the pot, and when water is boiled in the pot, the pressure pushes the hot water out the outlet, through the hose, and down the drain. This water would be hot, at boiling temperature, but it would be almost zero steam, in the extreme, it would require much less energy to push out a given weight of water than it requires to vaporize the water. So if we assume vaporization, as Rossi and Levi want us to, apparently, we would, for this setup, vastly overestimate the energy generated. It might even just be the electrical input, those numbers seem possible. Pseudoskeptic is completely inappropriate here. Asking questions to satisfy normal and reasonable skepticism is not pseudoskepticism, at all.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 04:04 PM 6/17/2011, you wrote: How easy is it really to get steam from 300 Watts only? The difference between 12kW and 300W must be obvious, even for the naked eye. I'd say that this is quite a naive understanding. First of all, what was the *peak* heating for that 12 kW result? The Ny Teknik report has 1 kW peak, reduced to 700 watts. This is easily enough to produce steam! (You can produce steam with 300 watts, it's all a question of how much, and it would only take a small amount of steam to drive water out the outlet pipe.) Sorry, my naked eye doesn't see power generation. Steam, as well, is invisible, what is seen is condensed water. Ever see an ultrasonic humidifier? It seems to be steaming, but it's just mist. It's cool. And no reports on input power? Is it measured at the plug, before whatever electronics he uses? The pictures shown by the blogger who was there with Krivit showed a current meter being clamped on the power wires, so, at the plug, is the short answer. Or at the input in the reactor? If the latest and if that is RF/pulsed there is definitely a measurement issue there, much more difficult than measuring steam. No, it's total power in, a safer, conservative value. This isn't the problem. The problem is that Rossi does have an electrical heater in there, and it's quite capable of bringing the device up to operating temperature, about 450 C. and that could be maintained above the boiling point, 100 C., with quite a bit less power. Someone who is highly experienced might be able to tell the difference, but I wouldn't bet on it. If pure steam is coming out of a pipe, into the air, where it can be seen entirely, and where the plume disappears, a big wet spot doesn't appear, it's dry steam. The steam will be invisible right where it comes out, but will turn into vapor quickly, which is the steam that we see. And then, as this spreads out, it revaporizes. When you boil water on the stove, does the stove get wet around the pot? Only if I allow it to boil over!
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 05:41 PM 6/17/2011, Rich Murray wrote: 3) Has this recent exchange caused by Krivit's visit changed your opinion at all? Good or bad... It's made me more sure that there is no excess heat. Well, Rich, your underpants are showing. So to speak. Excess heat in nickel-hydrogen is not terribly surprising, from prior reports. I heard a lot about it at the LANR Colloquium at MIT last weekend. The conditions are pretty different. It's obviously a different reaction than PdD. Anyone who is sure that there is no excess heat is basing that on theoretical prejudice, I'd bet. That's pseudoskepticism. From theory, fine to say unlikely. But being sure, no, Bad Idea. Cargo Cult Science. And do remember, I sat with the man who coined that term. Rich, please consider this: Rossi doesn't have a patent adequate to protect this, certainly not in the U.S., but it's also possible that his Italian patent, even, is defective. I heard a patent attorney comment on the Rossi patent application at MIT. His opinion matched mine: this patent was either not written by a patent attorney who knew what he was doing, it was utterly incompetent, or there was no intention to protect the invention and the patent was filed for other reasons. Given this, if the effect is real, he would not want to encourage attempts to independently discover his technique. Indeed, the question at this point would be why he held the demos at all, and people who know those involved tell me that the claimed motive, to please Focardi, was likely real. Rossi really doesn't want to convince anyone, and could benefit, from a business perspective, from widespread opinion that he's a complete fake. We don't normally think this way, normally we think that business people will want everyone to think they have the hottest product ever. But this is not an ordinary situation, Rossi has a device that, if it works, is worth *trillions* of dollars. Yet it's only worth that to him if he gains patent protection, and without some kind of truly killer demonstration -- not just something that convinces a few scientists who observe it -- he probably can't get the patent. Or he may not believe he can get the patent. And there are some severe patent problems, aside from the U.S. PTO refusal to consider cold fusion patents. The point is that Rossi is playing a very complex and difficult game, and he's going his own way. We should know, soon enough. That Defkalion press conference should be interesting!
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: If I remember correctly, Mats Lewan weighted the water that was condensated in the hose. Lewan and I discussed that. As I recall he did not weigh it, and he did not take the temperature. That would be a sparge test. Then end of the hose was too far from the machine to do this properly, and there was not enough water in the bucket. At those power levels (putative power levels), with that size bucket, you can only do this test for ~5 minutes. Frankly, there was not much point to condensing the water this way. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Well, Rich, your underpants are showing. For which you can be thrown off an airplane. Rossi, if nothing else and even if he turns out to be as phony as a three-dollar bill, may have gotten us off our collective duffs. I think that the lackadaisical attitude toward NiH has been the theoretical difficulties, and we really ought to know better than that! I think the impediment has been the practical difficulties. Srinivasan and others tried to replicate and failed. The power density always seemed far too low for it to be practical, except for Piantelli. Others could not replicate Piantelli, and it wasn't for lack of trying. I think everyone understood all along that Pd is probably too expensive. It is so rare it can only produce ~1/3rd of the energy we need (Fleischmann's estimate circa 1990). The plan was to find out how the reaction works in Pd. That is, to work out a theory. Then, the plan was to apply that theory to Ti or Ni or some other cheaper material. The advantage of Pd was that when you make it work, power density is sometimes high and the reaction can be measured with absolute confidence, *pace* Rich Murray. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Say, you two, what do you mean by, Well, Rich, your underpants are showing. ? I asking, because I don't get it... I meant that I'm sure there's no excess heat in the Rossi devices, and I mean it when I said I regret that. I prefer to state that I'm sure, rather than hedge my bets. I imagine that Rossi and associates are genuinely, innocently self-deluded. So, the parade leads to the moment when a little boy, underpants showing, cries, The Emperor has no clothes! I've been wanting to believe, too. Picking up my printout of the ICCF 16 abstracts, I was surprised by such specific evidence as presented, for instance, by John Dash for transmutations in micro pits in Pd and Ti cathodes via D2O electrolysis (page 94) and Andreas Petrucci et al re neutrons and transmutations in iron bars via ultrasound (page 87) -- I'd like to have free copies of these papers to consider in my usual painstaking detail. If these simple setups can be independently replicated, then we would have proof of unknown physics, resulting in immediate global research stampedes. Why didn't SPAWAR present there?
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Hi, On 16-6-2011 2:46, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-16 02:37, Alan J Fletcher wrote: The black wrapping first appeared on the vertical column the mini eCat -- see the March experiment by Kullander and Essén. It's shown partly unwrapped at http://lenr.qumbu.com/110406-c-Img+4+OUTPUT.jpg Looks like fancy duct tape. It looks quite thick to me. Couldn't it be lead-bitumen or lead sheet wrapping? Cheers, S.A. The thick black material looks like something such as armaflex (but then for hot systems) to me. This a kind of special industrial insulation material for pipes and metal bodies to prevent temperature inside it to raise or drop and respectively pick up and loose energy from/to the environment around the equipment. See also: http://www.armacell.com/www/armacell/ACwwwAttach.nsf/ansFiles/ArmaflexColdSystemsUK.pdf/$File/ArmaflexColdSystemsUK.pdf Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Some kind of aerogel? http://www.aerogel.com/markets/industrial-hot-products.html mic Il giorno 16/giu/2011 12:00, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com ha scritto: Hi, On 16-6-2011 2:46, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-16 02:37, Alan J Fletcher wrote: The black wrapping first appeared on the vertical column the mini eCat -- see the March experiment by Kullander and Essén. It's shown partly unwrapped at http://lenr.qumbu.com/110406-c-Img+4+OUTPUT.jpg Looks like fancy duct tape. It looks quite thick to me. Couldn't it be lead-bitumen or lead sheet wrapping? Cheers, S.A. The thick black material looks like something such as armaflex (but then for hot systems) to me. This a kind of special industrial insulation material for pipes and metal bodies to prevent temperature inside it to raise or drop and respectively pick up and loose energy from/to the environment around the equipment. See also: http://www.armacell.com/www/armacell/ACwwwAttach.nsf/ansFiles/ArmaflexColdSystemsUK.pdf/$File/ArmaflexColdSystemsUK.pdf Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Krivit's previous blog entry is a doozy: http://blog.newenergytimes.**com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-** may-ye-rest-in-peace/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/ http://**blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/**06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-** in-peace/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/ He's nuts on this. There is some ambiguity in the term fusion, a confusion between process and result. This is even nuttier than usual. Krivit wrote: 'Cold fusion' was a metaphor for a utopian dream: clean, inexpensive, universally available, virtually unlimited energy from water. It is not a metaphor; it is a fact. This is like saying that the atomic bomb was a metaphor for killing hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima. The concept of 'cold fusion' inspired hope for a greener planet, local energy production, freedom from the shackles of the petrocracy and, among other benevolent ideals, world peace. My first book, The Rebirth of Cold Fusion: Real Science, Real Hope, Real Energy, espoused this perspective. Why would any of this be nullified by the W-L theory, or if Mills is right? Theory has nothing to do with these predictions. For many years, proponents claimed 'cold fusion' as a nuclear process that emulated thermonuclear fusion at room temperature. LENR is nuclear, but it looks nothing like fusion. Unless it *is* fusion, in which case it looks like a different kind of fusion. He mean it looks nothing like plasma fusion, which is a different assertion. Not even cold fusion proponents propose that light-hydrogen nuclei fuse with each other at room temperature. Of course they do! Why wouldn't they? It is not that much more a stretch than deuterons fusing. Chubb’s last words to me about our ideological disagreement revolved around the absence of experimental evidence for the theory of 'cold fusion.' This followed my revelation of the data manipulation and fabrication by electrochemist Michael McKubre. This is nuts. Completely around the bend. This revelation exists in Krivit's own mind only. As I said, this is a doozy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-15 00:47, Akira Shirakawa wrote: A week of news is incoming, apparently: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/e-cat-settimana-di-novita-in-arrivo.html A couple more photos from the latest blogpost there: Short link: http://goo.gl/x50lj http://translate.google.com/translate?js=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1sl=ittl=enu=http%3A%2F%2F22passi.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F06%2Fquattro-gatti-e-sette-persone-2.html Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
-Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa A couple more photos from the latest blogpost there: Short link: http://goo.gl/x50lj Well, the pessimists amongst us will opine that this is looking worse and worse as an decent energy solution, especially compared to solar or wind. Most troubling, it is not living up to the guaranteed COP 8 at least not in this testing. Funny how Matts glosses over that fact. Why can they not get a decent engineer involved ? The device is drawing 800 watts electrical and producing 2.5 kW heat with an investment of $5000 and a lifetime before refueling of 5000 hours. This makes the cost of low grade heat about triple the cost of solar electricity (or much more), if you extrapolate everything according to the guarantee. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-16 22:53, Jones Beene wrote: [...] The device is drawing 800 watts electrical and producing 2.5 kW heat with an investment of $5000 and a lifetime before refueling of 5000 hours. This makes the cost of low grade heat about triple the cost of solar electricity (or much more), if you extrapolate everything according to the guarantee. According to one of the comments below, it seems that more than one device was active during the test (there is mention of two Energy Catalyzers connected in series or possibly more, though I have been unable to find a reference for this), thereby justifying the increased power draw. I hope Passerini will elaborate on this later. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On the meter you read 3.5A so electrical input power is: 3.5A x 230 V 800W mic 2011/6/16 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Jones Beene wrote: Well, the pessimists amongst us will opine that this is looking worse and worse as an decent energy solution, especially compared to solar or wind. Most troubling, it is not living up to the guaranteed COP8 at least not in this testing. Funny how Matts glosses over that fact. Why can they not get a decent engineer involved ? Jones: I don't follow what is being said here. I am having difficulty understanding the Google-translation. Can you briefly summarize what Daniel said did here, and why you draw these conclusions? I see from the photo it has to do with a meter but I can't follow. The comments below are even harder to understand. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Well, aside from the issue of whether or not this is AC, in which case the RMS would be lower - we should await more data and clarification - especially if there is the possibility that this is electrical input is powering more than one E-Cat. -Original Message- From: Michele Comitini On the meter you read 3.5A so electrical input power is: 3.5A x 230 V 800W mic 2011/6/16 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Jones Beene wrote: Well, the pessimists amongst us will opine that this is looking worse and worse as an decent energy solution, especially compared to solar or wind. Most troubling, it is not living up to the guaranteed COP8 at least not in this testing. Funny how Matts glosses over that fact. Why can they not get a decent engineer involved ? Jones: I don't follow what is being said here. I am having difficulty understanding the Google-translation. Can you briefly summarize what Daniel said did here, and why you draw these conclusions? I see from the photo it has to do with a meter but I can't follow. The comments below are even harder to understand. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-16 23:00, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones: I don't follow what is being said here. I am having difficulty understanding the Google-translation. Can you briefly summarize what Daniel said did here, and why you draw these conclusions? I see from the photo it has to do with a meter but I can't follow. The comments below are even harder to understand. A quick-ish human translation: * * * Last Tuesday in Bologna, by request of Mats Lewan, I documented with my Nikon [photocamera] the electric current measurements with a current probe on every power supply cable conductor - brown (live), blue (neutral) yellow-green (ground) - while the E-Cat was running. I would like to remember that the usual ones who give good suggestions as if they were Jesus on Earth admonished Mats for not doing the same check himself during the Ny Teknik April tests; because according to the most evil-minded ones, obviously, in the ground cable there was a Flash Gordon ray justifying the E-Cat energy surplus! I never tire of telling that this is not a scientific blog. In fact, of the 8 exams of Engineering I took 25 years ago - before continuing classical studies - I don't remember anything, except for the basis. I only have the luck to be a friend of a good physicist [Levi], who is himself appreciated by a professor emeritus [Focardi], who is himself consultant of the inventor of the Energy Catalyzer [Rossi]. Therefore, I leave further comments to these photos to those who have a solid scientific background. * * * Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Akira Shirakawa wrote: A quick-ish human translation: * * * Last Tuesday in Bologna, by request of Mats Lewan, I documented with my Nikon [photocamera] the electric current measurements with a current probe on every power supply cable conductor - brown (live), blue (neutral) yellow-green (ground) - while the E-Cat was running. Ah, thanks. So the problem here is not what what Daniel said, but rather what the meter itself shows. As Jones Beene just added, we do not even know what this meter is connected to. It may be the power supplies to more than one eCat. Maybe it is connected to that large blue box of control electronics. That looks to me like a multiplexed box capable of controlling many eCats. I suppose it has a lot of overhead. So this high power input is a concern but we cannot draw a firm conclusion from it yet. Do I have that right? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 03:56 PM 6/16/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Krivit's previous blog entry is a doozy: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/ He's nuts on this. There is some ambiguity in the term fusion, a confusion between process and result. This is even nuttier than usual. Disagree. It's usual. Krivit wrote: 'Cold fusion' was a metaphor for a utopian dream: clean, inexpensive, universally available, virtually unlimited energy from water. It is not a metaphor; it is a fact. This is like saying that the atomic bomb was a metaphor for killing hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima. Well, the dream is a fact, i.e., there is that dream. We don't have that energy from cold fusion yet, nor from any form of LENR. What Krivit does is to claim that neutron activation, under the special conditions W-L propose, isn't fusion, based on a pedantic distinction. In my book, if you take deuterium and make it into two neutrons by adding an electron, then insert this into a nucleus, which then spits out the electron, you have just accomplished fusion of deuterium with that nucleus, by neutralizing it with that original electron. It's fusion even before the electron is ejected. Adding an electron is a possible way to accomplish fusion. There are others. And we don't know which one is active, and it's possible that more than one is active. The concept of 'cold fusion' inspired hope for a greener planet, local energy production, freedom from the shackles of the petrocracy and, among other benevolent ideals, world peace. My first book, The Rebirth of Cold Fusion: Real Science, Real Hope, Real Energy, espoused this perspective. Somehow I think that the hope of world peace is a tad thin. Maybe, if there is less to fight over. And maybe not. I suspect that people will still find things to fight over, such as the definition of fusion. Maybe we should run the W-L people out of town on a rail, or tar and feather them. How does that sound? Game? My disappointment is that a man who thought of himself as a hard-hitting investigative journalist became a shill for one side of a dispute. However, isn't this what he originally did with cold fusion itself? He acknowledges being influenced by PhDs. Methinks that Krivit had a preference for PhDs with erratic views, the underdog, so to speak. I can understand that, but it's dangerous, and makes for poor investigative journalism. Sometimes the majority is right! (Usually, actually, but the exceptions can be doozies!) Why would any of this be nullified by the W-L theory, or if Mills is right? Theory has nothing to do with these predictions. Right. Cold fusion was very difficult to replicate, and for the same reason, commercial applications were even more difficult. That, however, simply sets the challenge. I saw, at the LANR conference, designs being proposed for LENR reactors, when we don't know nearly enough about sustaining these reactions to have a clue how to design them yet. Rossi, if this isn't fraud, did his homework well, and it's not about superior theory, as far as I can tell, but, again, we need to know more. I found this remarkable quote from the soul who wrote the report of that APS meeting in 1989: Jones' data were challenged by Morrison of CERN, who said Jones had overstated the statistical significance of his data. This summarizes the most optimistic outcome of the entire session. Whether it's 2 or 5.7 standard deviations, if it is reproducible then it does seem to indicate SOMETHING, perhaps cold fusion, is possible in metals, though at an extremely low rate. One other speaker mentioned the possibility of looking for the K-alpha x-ray emission from Pd as a signal of fusion.Most of the other papers represent essentially gloomy forecasts on the whole predicament. It may be time for most people to sit back and let Los Alamos (with Pons' collaboration) either reproduce or repudiate the FP results. On the other hand it's possible, even if FP are wrong (and it sure looks that way), that some good will have come out of all this: people may be inspired now to look in completely new directions.After all, some of the possible ideas (boson condensation, screening, etc.) that have been touted to explain this cold fusion in a metal do not sound so terribly off base. And there still are the Jones' results to contend with.Perhaps now research will proceed via the responsible scientific approach. Whoever wrote that
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-16 23:41, Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] So this high power input is a concern but we cannot draw a firm conclusion from it yet. Do I have that right? Yes, basically the point is that the meter shows a high power draw (~800 W) compared to last time (~350 W, see the April reports by Ny Teknik/Mats Lewan for more detailed info) which could mean, as suspected by some, that more than one E-Cat was running during the test or that for some reason a single device now requires more power (and if the output power is still ~2.5 kW, that the coefficient of performance is now lower than 6 - the bare minimum that Rossi supposedly will guarantee for production units, as he stated several times). Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-16 23:53, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Yes, basically the point is that... Passerini just added a clarifying note in the comments: - Only one E-Cat was being tested - Rossi was testing special settings which could have determined the increased power consumption. Reportedly, during electric current measurements the red LED on the right was set to 9, but during the test got often lowered to 5. At 5 - Passerini supposes - the reaction was unstable, with the output temperature warbling (more often up than down), while at 9 output temperature was more or less constant. Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 04:53 PM 6/16/2011, Jones Beene wrote: The device is drawing 800 watts electrical and producing 2.5 kW heat with an investment of $5000 and a lifetime before refueling of 5000 hours. This makes the cost of low grade heat about triple the cost of solar electricity (or much more), if you extrapolate everything according to the guarantee. They are claiming very low refueling costs, so it isn't nearly as bad as it looks. Unless those low cost claims go south also!
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-14 08:20, Peter Gluck wrote: My friend Steve Krivit is in Italy investigating the E-cat http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/14/solving-the-mystery-of-the-energy-catalzyer/ The E-cat has more unknowns, hopefully after Steve's visit their number will be smaller Krivit posted a preliminary report here a while ago: Short URL: http://goo.gl/7jVM6 http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/ He doesn't sound very enthusiastic. My impression is that he's become quite skeptical after his trip to Italy. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Oh, oh... what is the water flow? How is the hose draped from device to sink? What are the heights of the device water output and the edge of the sink? How much water might be in the 3 m black hose that wasn't in the end that was lifted above the sink and drained? Seems necessary to have a transparent hose... I feel sad, resigned... Steven B. Krivit deserves credit for focused, careful scientific investigation. Rich http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/ Solving the Mystery of the Energy Catalzyer Preliminary Report of Interviews with E-Cat Trio Rossi, Focardi and Levi, Posted on June 16, 2011 by Steven B. Krivit Bologna, Italia -- Here is a quick status report of my visit to Andrea Rossi’s showroom on Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday to look at his invention which he calls the Energy Catalyzer. In addition to Rossi, I also came to speak with Sergio Focardi, professor emeritus from the University of Bologna, and Giuseppe Levi, a current member of the University of Bologna department of physics. All three have been actively involved in the experiments and promotion of the E-Cat. I arrived at the address Dell’Elettricista 6-C, Zona Industriale Roveri on Tuesday at noon. 6-C is one of the suites in a single story building that houses a variety of light industrial companies. The name shown for suite 6-C is Filli Rossi Pneumatica, which translates to Rossi Brothers Tires. In March, Swedish professors Hanno Essen and Sven Kullander, who came to see the E-Cat, wrote in their travel report that this was a “Leonardo Corporation” building, but there was nothing visible to indicate that. The large bay door of suite 6-C was open and I saw lots of equipment and a few men inside working. I asked a man for Andrea Rossi and he brought me back outside and around to the back of the building. I entered a large room, approximately 7,500 square feet in size. Nothing was installed in it and electrical power came into the room from an extension cable. Except for a few dozen folding chairs, a few tables, and a small portable coffee machine (essential in Italy,) the room was barren. Adjacent to this large room were two smaller rooms. One was a bathroom and next to that, in a room about 80 square feet in size, Rossi’s E-Cat sat on a small table. Two large tanks of hydrogen stood next to it. I observed and filmed the E-Cat in operation though there was not that much to see. I also recorded several hours of videotaped interviews of Rossi, Focardi and Levi. Details of my investigation, travel report and production of my videos will take a few weeks to complete. The primary validity of the E-Cat trio’s dramatic energy claim is highly contingent on and derived from the heat output which they calculate indirectly from a claimed full or near-full vaporization of 100-degree water to steam. Complete vaporization of 100-degree water into steam requires the complete absence of suspended water droplets in steam. The water droplets suspended in the steam may be measured on a volumetric, or possibly, on a mass basis. The difference is crucial, because a measurement by mass has a linear effect on the output enthalpy, and a measurement by volume has more of an exponential effect. Volumetrically, a mere five percent of water in steam reduces the vaporization enthalpy to a trivial level. Even one percent of water in the steam will make a major reduction in the Rossi-Focardi-Levi claims. My full report will include a detailed assessment of their methodology, and, as much as they will provide, their data. The steam and/or water that comes immediately out of the E-Cat is hidden from sight because the outlet from the E-Cat goes directly to a three-meter black rubber hose, which then feeds into a drain in the plumbing system. On my request Tuesday, Rossi removed the hose from the drain. Before doing so, he carefully lifted the last meter of the hose above the height of the drain, allowed any water in it to flow down the drain for a few seconds, and then removed the hose from the drain, keeping the open end pointed up. I could see some white steam slowly exiting from the hose. He said he had to put it back in the drain quickly, after a few seconds, otherwise it could be dangerous. Thus far, the scientific details provided by the E-Cat trio have been highly deficient and have not enabled the public to make an objective evaluation. The Essen-Kullander report, while written with confident-sounding language, has significant weakness in its presentation of data and calculations and is highly constrained by the methodology dictated and instrumentation provided by the E-Cat trio. I discussed the crucial difference in steam enthalpy calculations by mass versus by volume with Levi on Wednesday afternoon. Based on his initial response, I could not be sure if he had previously understood the potential impact. By the end of our conversation, after I showed him my
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 08:46 PM 6/16/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Krivit posted a preliminary report here a while ago: Short URL: http://goo.gl/7jVM6 http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/ He doesn't sound very enthusiastic. My impression is that he's become quite skeptical after his trip to Italy. I'd say, so far, so good. Let's hope he gets some decent answers.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Filli Rossi Pneumatica can have another meaning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatics mic 2011/6/17 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 08:46 PM 6/16/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Krivit posted a preliminary report here a while ago: Short URL: http://goo.gl/7jVM6 http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/ He doesn't sound very enthusiastic. My impression is that he's become quite skeptical after his trip to Italy. I'd say, so far, so good. Let's hope he gets some decent answers.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
- Original Message From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, June 15, 2011 10:58:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative At 02:30 PM 6/14/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: Since the Widom-Larsen theory explains the positive results, can it also explain the negative results. A good theory should be able to do both. I don't see W-L theory explaining positive results, at all. If so, it's been very badly explained! There are lots observations explained here: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml#slides Krivit completely failed to be the investigative journalist, asking hard questions, with W-L theory. Yes, a good theory would explain both positive and negative results. Nothing is really close to that yet, though what I heard at MIT last weekend does give me some hope. Among the many things WL say their theory can explain is why D kills the reaction in Ni-H systems and why H kills the reaction in D-Pd systems. Kirvit does include some informal criticism of the WL theory on his website, http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml Harry Still, Peter Hagelstein was struggling with models for electrochemical loading. Apparently the standard models suck, to use a technical term. Peter has more or less figured out why, but it's very difficult to model, since it depends on quite a chaotic and very individual process, for each cathode, as it develops what he calls internal leaks, that is, leaks into internal cavities and domain boundaries, that eventually communicate to the outside. Put another way, the palladium can develop a high surface area, with most of the surface being internal and not exposed to the electrolyte and thus to loading, only to deloading.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-15 00:47, Akira Shirakawa wrote: A week of news is incoming, apparently: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/e-cat-settimana-di-novita-in-arrivo.html More photos in this Google-translated link of the latest Blog entry from 22passi. For additional information it looks like we will have to wait some more time: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1sl=ittl=enu=http%3A%2F%2F22passi.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F06%2Fquattro-gatti-e-sette-persone.html Short URL: http://goo.gl/C854K Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone.html Looks like AR has four EKits running simultaneously similar to the plan for the 1MW reactor. T
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone.html Looks like AR has four EKits running simultaneously similar to the plan for the 1MW reactor. Looks like 4 Ekits running in series with white rubber hoses for the water interconnecting the units. There's only one temperature probe . . . on the last Ekit. Pure speculum. T
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Has the black wrapping replaced the tin foil or is the foil underneath? What sort of material is black wrapping? Harry - Original Message From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, June 15, 2011 7:33:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone.html Looks like AR has four EKits running simultaneously similar to the plan for the 1MW reactor. Looks like 4 Ekits running in series with white rubber hoses for the water interconnecting the units. There's only one temperature probe . . . on the last Ekit. Pure speculum. T
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 05:20 PM 6/15/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: Has the black wrapping replaced the tin foil or is the foil underneath? What sort of material is black wrapping? The black wrapping first appeared on the vertical column the mini eCat -- see the March experiment by Kullander and Essén. It's shown partly unwrapped at http://lenr.qumbu.com/110406-c-Img+4+OUTPUT.jpg Looks like fancy duct tape.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-16 02:37, Alan J Fletcher wrote: The black wrapping first appeared on the vertical column the mini eCat -- see the March experiment by Kullander and Essén. It's shown partly unwrapped at http://lenr.qumbu.com/110406-c-Img+4+OUTPUT.jpg Looks like fancy duct tape. It looks quite thick to me. Couldn't it be lead-bitumen or lead sheet wrapping? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 02:15 PM 6/14/2011, Alan Fletcher wrote: He sure is a hard-liner on the term Cold Fusion. -- Krivit's previous blog entry is a doozy: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/ He's nuts on this. There is some ambiguity in the term fusion, a confusion between process and result. If I have a black box and you put deuterium in, and get helium and energy out, is it a fusion box? Or does fusion refer only to a specific process, say two deuterons being slammed together at high velocity, or coaxed together with some catalyst, such as muons? As we know, most directly, the ash or product, fusion is most clearly applied to this. If we put in deuterium and get fusion out, it's fusion, even if neutron formation is part of the process. Basically, Widom-Larsen makes ULM neutrons from deuterium and heavy electrons, and the neutrons fuse with various nuclei, in a proposed series of reactions that end with, among other products, helium. Problem is, only the helium product is seen in large quantities, compared to produced energy. And an amazingly efficient process of absorption of gamma rays, expected from the neutron activations, is hypothesized for the heavy electrons. No leakage around the edges. Be that as it may, Krivit went on a crusade to discredit the strongest evidence in existence for a nuclear reaction, the ash findings, i.e., helium, and the results from which the heat/helium ratio is estimated. It seems impossible to me to reconcile the heat/helium data, as it is, with Widom-Larsen, but W-L theory is inadequately elaborated, a point that Krivit does not seem to appreciate. With some, W-L theory seems popular because it allows a person to dissociate themselves from the allegedly rejected (and definitely detested by some) cold fusion label. The original rejection, howeve, was based almost entirely on an assumption that, if there is fusion, it must be ordinary d-d fusion, when, obviously, it isn't. I heard a number of theoretical physicists, at the LANR colloquium at MIT last weekend, describe reasons why even d-d fusion might be occurring, but most theories seem to be inclined to multibody fusion, or at least the involvement of clusters, which can fairly readily explain the branching issue and the lack of gammas. I know of no cold fusion theory, however, that adequately explains or predicts all the experimental data. When I say It's fusion!, I mean that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect is due to the conversion of deuterium to helium, *mechanism unknown. That's a fusion theory, to be sure, but it's one with ample experimental evidence, that avoids specifying the mechanism. It predicts that if you set up an F-P experiment, or some other technique that exploits the same (unknown) mechanism, you will see helium generated in proportion to the heat, at about 25 MeV/He-4. Because of the predictive value, this is a scientific theory -- some have ridiculed the idea of a theory without a mechanism. A theory need not explain *everything,* if it can predict *something*, that ought to be obvious. Now, what does W-L predict that can be measured? Someone tell me!
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 02:30 PM 6/14/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: Since the Widom-Larsen theory explains the positive results, can it also explain the negative results. A good theory should be able to do both. I don't see W-L theory explaining positive results, at all. If so, it's been very badly explained! Krivit completely failed to be the investigative journalist, asking hard questions, with W-L theory. Yes, a good theory would explain both positive and negative results. Nothing is really close to that yet, though what I heard at MIT last weekend does give me some hope. Still, Peter Hagelstein was struggling with models for electrochemical loading. Apparently the standard models suck, to use a technical term. Peter has more or less figured out why, but it's very difficult to model, since it depends on quite a chaotic and very individual process, for each cathode, as it develops what he calls internal leaks, that is, leaks into internal cavities and domain boundaries, that eventually communicate to the outside. Put another way, the palladium can develop a high surface area, with most of the surface being internal and not exposed to the electrolyte and thus to loading, only to deloading.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-14 08:20, Peter Gluck wrote: My friend Steve Krivit is in Italy investigating the E-cat http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/14/solving-the-mystery-of-the-energy-catalzyer/ The E-cat has more unknowns, hopefully after Steve's visit their number will be smaller Daniele Passerini (22passi) is also in Bologna today. Hopefully we will have interesting news soon. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Krivit's previous blog entry is a doozy: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/ I hope that Rossi allows Krivit to make independent measurements. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
I also hope Rossi allows Steve Krivit to make independent measurements. We all know that Steve is not going to give Rossi a free pass. He will take as close a look as possible at Rossi's device and then render his opinion regarding its validity. On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Krivit's previous blog entry is a doozy: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/ I hope that Rossi allows Krivit to make independent measurements. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
He sure is a hard-liner on the term Cold Fusion. Krivit's previous blog entry is a doozy: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Since the Widom-Larsen theory explains the positive results, can it also explain the negative results. A good theory should be able to do both. Harry From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, June 14, 2011 10:21:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative Krivit's previous blog entry is a doozy: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/ I hope that Rossi allows Krivit to make independent measurements. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Even if LENR is found to ulimately not be fusion and rather is other weak atomic forces interacting, it may be commonly known as cold fusion' in colloquial terms. In any case, all this talk about what to name the field will be overshowed by technological developments, if Rossi actually has working LENR devices providing heat later this year. The scientists will settle on an acceptable scientific term and the general public will either adopt that term or just stick with the more familiar cold fusion, even if it's not fusion. There are other examples in the modern English language in which the true meaning of a phrase is different than the phrase used to describe it. On 6/14/11, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: He sure is a hard-liner on the term Cold Fusion. Krivit's previous blog entry is a doozy: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-14 11:55, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Daniele Passerini (22passi) is also in Bologna today. Hopefully we will have interesting news soon. A week of news is incoming, apparently: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/e-cat-settimana-di-novita-in-arrivo.html Cheers, S.A.
