Just to help, I've thrown out on "Hot and cold fusion" blog some ideas about testing, more focused on ruling out the fraud hypothesis that is ahead in most skeptics minds (unless here where calorimetry is recognized as subtle art).
Maybe is it naive (and quickly written) but it may raison some more formal ideas of protocol. as said here, question is if it is corporate time to rule out doubts. ---------------- more generally, make iterative improvement and checks from feedback. This is to avoid the moving target symptom. Many critics against Elforsk test could have been addressed in 5 minutes. Dump a report everyday with protocols, results, checking, ... check all that have been discussed the day before keep video tracks among ideas for electricity : - a 1/1 transformer in from of the variac (to block DC ,and most HF) - why not an UPS (with a power consumed panel to crosscheck) - old style electricity billing meter, or/and a new smartmeter (linky style) - magnetic torus to block HF, on each wire and on the pair (to block the common mode) - DC aware (hall effect) clamp ammeter, beside wideband AC clamp ammeter - why not wired powermeter with no clamp, wire ammeter... - transparent/glass/plexiglass pipes at entry and exit of reactor (beware of heat) - exit the steam into a big tank to check reality of steam enthalpy end water volume (best would be to have enough water to have no output steam from the water) - measure water and steam pressure (more or less) - visible electric cabling made by the testers, with cutting points where power is measured, done on a plexiglass plate . best is wired powermeter with wired ammeter and voltmeter. my vision of the test would be, 1- the device, the variac, the controllers, on a glass/plexiglass table. only electric input, and water in/out. -> maybe there is a problem because of thermocouple needed to control the reactor and who have to get out of the table. -> the best would be to avoid unessential measurement, at worst use small (third party) temperature displays on, the table to be read manually. at worst a small netbook to record measurement (with power measured like the reactor), with all devices on the table. - a (transparent) cutting plate (a flat part with socket in, socket out, and measurement between) provided by testers where power is measured, current is filtered of HF, common-mode, why not DC through 1/1 transformer, UPS. Either power is measured as a whole, or detailed in channels (heating, plasma, measurement laptop) ... One idea is a billing meter, and 3 modern power-meter. some connectors to plug oscilloscope to check waveform (best would be to measure voltage, but also current through a shunt or a current transformer). on another plate, similar but for fluid: -a plate designer by the testers -with thermocouple, -pressure sensor, - entry volume meter - anti-backward -some transparent part to see the fluid - be careful not to pollute the water of DGT (check with them if you are qualified - they clean it, see the demo), or induce safety problems. the evacuation of steam can be interesting, but given pressure and temperature there is few problems to address... evacuating the water in a big (insulated?) tank, measuring volume increase, temperature change, to rule out fraud fears... evacuating in the atmosphere may be fun and reassure some people. maybe some wetness test (ask professional). about measurement this paranoid setup may prevent to use labview or alike recorders. One possibility is to ask to install your own labview compatible instruments, instead of manual devices. Maybe is it possible to make a labview cutting-box for electricity and water, and even for reactor thermocouple... just checking few parameter manually with hand instruments... Provided it is done by yourself there is no problems. most of the important things are not to be precise but to rule out fraud. It is important to ask DGT (or any competent interested party) advice about safety and measurements, in case they know some pitfall to avoid. The important is just to do it yourself, and document it. About NDA, just agree to make the content of the NDA public, to exclude proven fraud from NDA. No need to open the reactor... at most weighting of components. good luck. 2013/8/1 Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> > Dear Jed, > > Some comments to your comments, if you allow it to me. > > First it is not about a fight between DGT and Mary Yugo, on the > contrary it is kind of collaboration, a bit special I reckon but > definitely a cooperation. A sine qua non pre-condition for this > is Mary becoming a real person with credentials and also > with criminal record- she knows lot of fraud- possibly from > investigating them but possibly from comitting them- > you never know- I am old and have seen all kind of people. > You cannot work with ghosts, zombies or people with no identity > and no responsibility- if the tests comes out differently than she > wishes, she can declare: "they have NOT convinced me" and bye! > > > The obsesssion with an independent test became a strong meme > in our field; you have seen in this stage that a manual test needs > experience and skills, an automatic test is dependent on the > program. This independent issue has to be discussed in detail > and principle. However surely you will see independent test. > > I consider that to be undecided is a bsic human right and > nobody should force you to a Y/N decision regarding Rossi > or Defkalion- as long a you represent yourself- an important > person in the long Cold Fusion history and not some institution > or organization. > > I am preparing an essay about what to do in LENR field to make the things > much easier; a very important idea is to make a clear and sharp distinction > between LENR classic and LENR+. Different mechanism are at work, > soimplistically the firts is static and the second is dynamic. And the > second is with 3 orders of magnitude more intense than the second. > The same laws apply to both but diffeently. > It is not effective to mix LENR and LENR+. > > Peter > > > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I responded to some of the comments at Mats Lewan's blog: >> >> >> https://matslew.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/comments-on-defkalion-reactor-demo-in-milan/#comment-1097 >> >> I have to walk a fine line. I do not want to get dragged into a fight >> between Defkalion and Mary Yugo. I also do not want anyone to think I >> endorse Defkalion's claims. They have to publish an independent replication >> to establish credibility. I cannot judge whether their claims are true, >> false, or mistaken. It is even remotely possible they are fraudulent, >> although I doubt that. >> >> The video was a helpful guide to their claims. It puts us in a better >> position to judge an independent evaluation. But until we see that >> evaluation we must reserve judgement. No one gets a free pass. Nullius in >> verba. If Defkalion wants people to believe them, they will publish one of >> their reports now held under NDA. >> >> I think it is irresponsible to accuse them of fraud, but it would also be >> irresponsible to endorse their claims. I wrote in the blog: "In view of the >> recent tests by Levi et al., and some unpublished previous tests, I think >> it is extremely unlikely that Rossi is engaged in fraud. I regard the Levi >> report as independent verification. I have not seen a similar independent >> verification of Defkalion’s claims so I cannot judge their credibility. >> Obviously I cannot endorse their claims either." >> >> On the other hand, there is no harm in speculating about the theoretical >> or engineering aspects of Defkalion's claims, on the assumption that the >> claims are true. When an interesting new experiment is published we glom >> onto it. We try to figure out how it fits into the big picture of cold >> fusion. We do this even though we know that many results turn out to be >> mistaken. I am still not sure about Celani's wire claims, especially after >> the MFMP and others made heroic attempts to replicate with no clear >> results. If that turns out to be a mistake, oy veh! Too bad! That will mean >> we have wasted our time speculating about the theoretical or practical uses >> of wire, and the MFMP has wasted months of effort and a ton of money. >> Them's the breaks. If you don't like that, do not get involved in >> cutting-edge scientific research. >> >> We would have to forgive Celani if it turns out to be a mistake. Fraud >> would infuriating and unforgivable. But they are functionally similar in >> many ways. I do not think many people outside of Defkalion have invested >> much effort or time evaluating their results, or speculating about the >> theoretical implications. Until the demo we have not had much to speculate >> about. People have spent a lot of effort looking at Rossi's results. This >> has been fruitful. >> >> - Jed >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
