10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[Crawdaddy]

My biggest problem was that the output temperature during the Levi- test was basically room temperature. Without knowing the temperature in the environment, how much of that might have contributed to the heating of the water? I dont know. Nobody knows, because very little information has been published and/or critical measurements have not been made.

As a practicing research scientist who applies the scientific method in the design and manufacture of submicroscopic optoelectronic devices on a daily basis, I would like to point out the contrast between this statement and your previous post.

Your biggest concern, cited above, is not a valid objection to the 18hour test. In fact the temperature of the room could be 50C and the effect on the output temperature would not be altered significantly. A true scientist would convince themselves of the validity of their concerns before assigning relevance to something as trivial and unimportant as room temperature.

The only explanation consistent with the reported facts of the 18hour test is Levi actively engaging in fraud or legitimate ecat function.

The observation of 40C output water and the use of a flowmeter to measure the water is not consistent with honest error.

On the topic of science based inquiry.

A scientist seeking to add the the body of knowledge about the natural world must arm themselves with expert knowledge of the topic they are seeking to explore. It is not standard scientific practice for an expert who presents data to spoon feed a critic who is ignorant of the basic foundations of a topic. I suggest you read the literature available on cold fusion and convince yourself that you understand all aspects of the science before you impune the credibility of others based on arguments about the practice of science, not doing so is hypocritical in the extreme.

A practicing scientist has no obligation to explain any aspect of their experimental system to a non-scientist or even other scientists who refuse to educate themselves with the knowledge required to effectively critique a result.

[Maui]

nasonex - for some reason I keep reading your id as nanosex!

lol... I didn't even realize I was doing this until you pointed it out. Does this mean our minds are in the [really small] gutter?

[parallel]

tomclarke,

I'm happy for a $100 bet. But we need to have agreed conditions. What is your proposal?

Well to keep it as simple as possible, what I suggested previously.

The majority of the test groups report a measured COP >6

1. This refers to DGT’s offer of testing bare reactors
2. The protocol used and analysis of the results to be judged acceptable by >70% of the blogosphere.
3. Inconclusive results or no general agreement from said blogosphere cancels the bet.
4. You win if >70% of said test groups report the COP <6

Actually, if it works I don’t think there will be much doubt about it as DGT claims a COP ~30 . That is to say measurement error won’t be much of a factor if it really works as well as claimed.

[Skipjack]

In fact the temperature of the room could be 50C and the effect on the output temperature would not be altered significantly.

No, it would not? How can you know? Were you there and did you do a control? Do you know enough about the test setup to rule this out? All I know is hat 20 degrees is below room temperature and the starting temperature is way below that. Even if it only contributed a little bit to the temperature increase due dilligence would demand to factor this in and adress it in the results. I dont think that this was actually done and so I have a problem with it.

[Skipjack]

3. Inconclusive results or no general agreement from said blogosphere cancels the bet.

Hmm, I think that this is not fair. It basically means that it once again is a "noshow", like all previous tests... From this point on, I would regard another noshow as a failure

[ladajo]

Does anyone want to pick this apart? On my first look it would seem that Rossi has once again changed his story on several fronts. I have bolded where I thought it a further deviation from past statements and corroborations:

Andrea Rossi
February 23rd, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Dear Redazione NextMe.it:
1- no radiations have been detected outside the E-Cats in thousand hours of operation
2- we will disclose the theory regarding the physics of the E-Cat after the product will be in the market: as you know, we will put it in the market at a price that will make useless any reverse engineering.
3- we made repeatedly tests
4- we are working also on the electric power production
5- NASA is not in contact with us
6- About the university of Bologna I am under NDA, as well as they are.
7- I do not think the E-Cats can produce new matirials. They can only produce thermal energy.
8- The E-Cat will be sold at a price between 500 and 900 US$.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

[Crawdaddy]

In fact the temperature of the room could be 50C and the effect on the output temperature would not be altered significantly.

No, it would not? How can you know? Were you there and did you do a control? Do you know enough about the test setup to rule this out? All I know is hat 20 degrees is below room temperature and the starting temperature is way below that. Even if it only contributed a little bit to the temperature increase due dilligence would demand to factor this in and adress it in the results. I dont think that this was actually done and so I have a problem with it.

If the test was conducted as described then there is no way the temperature of the room would affect the measured temperature. Anyone familiar with the concepts of heat capacity and heat transfer from gases to condensed phases can say this with an extremely high level of certainty.

As per my last comment, spoon feeding you this basic knowledge is not Levi's reponsibility. It is the responsibility of the critic to present plausible objections to results. Obviously flawed, handwaving arguments do not merit a comprehensive reply.

[ScottL]

Does anyone want to pick this apart? On my first look it would seem that Rossi has once again changed his story on several fronts. I have bolded where I thought it a further deviation from past statements and corroborations:

Andrea Rossi
February 23rd, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Dear Redazione NextMe.it:
1- no radiations have been detected outside the E-Cats in thousand hours of operation
2- we will disclose the theory regarding the physics of the E-Cat after the product will be in the market: as you know, we will put it in the market at a price that will make useless any reverse engineering.
3- we made repeatedly tests
4- we are working also on the electric power production
5- NASA is not in contact with us
6- About the university of Bologna I am under NDA, as well as they are.
7- I do not think the E-Cats can produce new matirials. They can only produce thermal energy.
8- The E-Cat will be sold at a price between 500 and 900 US$.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

The only thing I can say definitively is that UoB is NOT under an NDA. There is currently no contract or agreement, verbal or otherwise in play. Rossi left the table and has not come back as of yet. UoB has offered to test the ecat when and if Rossi returns.

As for new materials, aren't they "producing" various isotopes?

[GIThruster]

So, Levi's 18 hour test. You say it produced 10's of kW peaking at 100's of kW. I think you mean this one:

February 2011, updated March 2011

On February 10 and 11, 2011, Levi et al. (U. Bologna) performed another test of the Rossi device. Compared to the January 14 test, they used a much higher flow rate, to keep the cooling water from vaporizing. This is partly to recover more heat, and partly because Celani and others criticized phase-change calorimetry as too complicated. There were concerns about the enthalpy of wet steam versus dry steam, and the use of a relative humidity meter to determine how dry the steam was. A source close to the test gave Jed Rothwell the following figures. These are approximations:

Duration of test: 18 hours
Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = ~833 ml/s.
Cooling water input temperature: 15°C
Cooling water output temperature: ~20°C
Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W for 6 hours

The temperature difference of 5°C * 833 ml = 4,165 calories/second = 17,493 W. Observers estimated average power as 16 kW. A 5°C temperature difference can easily be measured with confidence.

3,000 L/h is 793 gallons/h, which is the output of a medium-sized $120 ornamental pond pump.

The control electronics input of ~80 W is in line with what was reported for tests before Jan. 14. Input power was high on that day because there was a problem with cracked welding, according to the Levi report.

18 hours * 16 kW = 288 kWh = 1,037 MJ. That is the amount of energy in 26 kg of gasoline (7.9 gallons). Given the size and weight of the device, this rules out a chemical source of energy.

Impressive.

Now, tell me, how was that output power calculated? What are the error bars? Is the above summary accurate?

To be fair, it seems obvious how the output power was calculated, though perhaps there are intricacies we ought to be aware of. Surely though, 80W in and 17kW out is a huge claim.

There is no standard deviation by which to build error bars with a single run experiment, so asking for error bars relates to what precisely?

"Is the above summary accurate?" seems to be the thing most people want answered. It's precisely because Rossi hasn't used an open science format, and has discredited himself in several ways in the past, that people are justified to question on the face whether these reports lack veracity. So to put a finer point on it--what reasons do we have to believe this report?

[Skipjack]

If the test was conducted as described then there is no way the temperature of the room would affect the measured temperature. Anyone familiar with the concepts of heat capacity and heat transfer from gases to condensed phases can say this with an extremely high level of certainty.

Ok, well the description of he experimental setup may have been a bit too ambiguous in this regard. Also with a mean temperature difference of only 5 degrees C between the imput and the output temperature and a test length of 18 hours in a warm room, a lot is possible.
I am at least not ruling out a source of error in this regard. Either way, Levi has been cautious enough about his own results that he never released the test protocol and data that he had originally promised. I think he very much knew that it would not hold up to scrutiny and therefore retreated to save his reputation (which is OK, IMHO).

[ladajo]

Does anyone want to pick this apart? On my first look it would seem that Rossi has once again changed his story on several fronts. I have bolded where I thought it a further deviation from past statements and corroborations:

Andrea Rossi
February 23rd, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Dear Redazione NextMe.it:
1- no radiations have been detected outside the E-Cats in thousand hours of operation
2- we will disclose the theory regarding the physics of the E-Cat after the product will be in the market: as you know, we will put it in the market at a price that will make useless any reverse engineering.
3- we made repeatedly tests
4- we are working also on the electric power production
5- NASA is not in contact with us
6- About the university of Bologna I am under NDA, as well as they are.
7- I do not think the E-Cats can produce new matirials. They can only produce thermal energy.
8- The E-Cat will be sold at a price between 500 and 900 US$.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

The only thing I can say definitively is that UoB is NOT under an NDA. There is currently no contract or agreement, verbal or otherwise in play. Rossi left the table and has not come back as of yet. UoB has offered to test the ecat when and if Rossi returns.

As for new materials, aren't they "producing" various isotopes?

Let's not forget the discussion about 511 gammas.

I guess to be fair, NASA is not in contact since Rossi burned the bridge.

As the Rossiworld Turns. Glinting Glee in the eyes.

[Crawdaddy]

If the test was conducted as described then there is no way the temperature of the room would affect the measured temperature. Anyone familiar with the concepts of heat capacity and heat transfer from gases to condensed phases can say this with an extremely high level of certainty.

Ok, well the description of he experimental setup may have been a bit too ambiguous in this regard. Also with a mean temperature difference of only 5 degrees C between the imput and the output temperature and a test length of 18 hours in a warm room, a lot is possible.
I am at least not ruling out a source of error in this regard. Either way, Levi has been cautious enough about his own results that he never released the test protocol and data that he had originally promised. I think he very much knew that it would not hold up to scrutiny and therefore retreated to save his reputation (which is OK, IMHO).

This is more handwaving. Your characterization of Levi's conduct is entirely without support. You are welcome to your opinion but holds as much weight as the effort you put into forming it.

You are obviously unwilling to take the few minutes it would take to convince yourself that the room temperature argument is flawed. The fact that you are willing to dissemble and change your focus to Levi's imagined motivations instead of the observations he reported to Mats Lewan, reveals that your previous post about the importance of the scientific approach to a rational science based discussion of cold fusion was just talk.

If it turns out that this cold fusion technique is legitimate, it will be your intellectually lazy approach to debunking these reports that caused you get it wrong.

[Skipjack]

You are obviously unwilling to take the few minutes it would take to convince yourself that the room temperature argument is flawed.

So you are denying that he changed his opinion on releasing his data and protocolls to the public? Because I do remember that he originally had promised to do just that and then never did. He even promised to Krivit on video!

instead of the observations he reported to Mats Lewan

What kind of report was that? It cant have been a fully featured report as you would expect from a man of Levi's reputation, because I would have heard of that.

If it turns out that this cold fusion technique is legitimate, it will be your intellectually lazy approach to debunking these reports that caused you get it wrong.

Oh please, if anything it will be Rossi's lazy approach to scientific method and conduct.

I am simply standing here left with NO relevant data, trying to get to a conclusion and the only thing I am getting to is frustration over the flop flopping and complete lack of due dilligence by pretty much everyone involved, especially Rossi.
And Levi schould have had a control, no matter what.

[tomclarke]

My biggest problem was that the output temperature during the Levi- test was basically room temperature. Without knowing the temperature in the environment, how much of that might have contributed to the heating of the water? I dont know. Nobody knows, because very little information has been published and/or critical measurements have not been made.

As a practicing research scientist who applies the scientific method in the design and manufacture of submicroscopic optoelectronic devices on a daily basis, I would like to point out the contrast between this statement and your previous post.

Your biggest concern, cited above, is not a valid objection to the 18hour test. In fact the temperature of the room could be 50C and the effect on the output temperature would not be altered significantly. A true scientist would convince themselves of the validity of their concerns before assigning relevance to something as trivial and unimportant as room temperature.

The only explanation consistent with the reported facts of the 18hour test is Levi actively engaging in fraud or legitimate ecat function.

The observation of 40C output water and the use of a flowmeter to measure the water is not consistent with honest error.

On the topic of science based inquiry.

A scientist seeking to add the the body of knowledge about the natural world must arm themselves with expert knowledge of the topic they are seeking to explore. It is not standard scientific practice for an expert who presents data to spoon feed a critic who is ignorant of the basic foundations of a topic. I suggest you read the literature available on cold fusion and convince yourself that you understand all aspects of the science before you impune the credibility of others based on arguments about the practice of science, not doing so is hypocritical in the extreme.

A practicing scientist has no obligation to explain any aspect of their experimental system to a non-scientist or even other scientists who refuse to educate themselves with the knowledge required to effectively critique a result.

You are not reading the data carefully. The 40C was during the peak output, for v short time. Irrelevant.

Initially, the temperature of the inflowing water was seven degrees Celsius and for a while the outlet temperature was 40 degrees Celsius. A flow rate of about one liter per second, equates to a peak power of 130 kilowatts. The power output was later stabilized at 15 to 20 kilowatts.

from http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 108242.ece
Inlet 7C

So 130kW = 40-7 = 33C =>
15kW = 3.8C. -> out at 10.8C

WELL BELOW room temp.

Now, anyone here who knows a little high school physics (that is most, I guess) will reckon that with say 7C outlet and 20C room temp you can get108C read on sensor providing sensor thermal conductivity to ambient is about 1/3 of thermal conductivity to water flow.

Since we have no info on the experimental setup, and Rossi's previous experiments, even when checked and announced good by Levi, have been clearly broken, we cannot assume that the output temp sensor is correctly positioned. In fact determining these two thermal conductivities could not be done from inspection, only from careful calibration.

I suspect, based on past form and the fact that he does not check it, that Levi does assume this.

We have no accurate info about this experiment so we can't tell, but certainly it proves nothing.

Oh - some of the other writeups say 15C input temp. But lack of consistent info just makes the test more suspect. In other tests, to our certain knowledge, variable values have been quoted at their most favourable value.

That is why I don't see this test as proving anything.

Thus outlet temp is

The tmp rise on which the claims are based is

[Crawdaddy]

You are obviously unwilling to take the few minutes it would take to convince yourself that the room temperature argument is flawed.

So you are denying that he changed his opinion on releasing his data and protocolls to the public? Because I do remember that he originally had promised to do just that and then never did. He even promised to Krivit on video!

instead of the observations he reported to Mats Lewan

What kind of report was that? It cant have been a fully featured report as you would expect from a man of Levi's reputation, because I would have heard of that.

If it turns out that this cold fusion technique is legitimate, it will be your intellectually lazy approach to debunking these reports that caused you get it wrong.

Oh please, if anything it will be Rossi's lazy approach to scientific method and conduct.

I am simply standing here left with NO relevant data, trying to get to a conclusion and the only thing I am getting to is frustration over the flop flopping and complete lack of due dilligence by pretty much everyone involved, especially Rossi.
And Levi schould have had a control, no matter what.

You are changing the subject.

It would appear that now your biggest problem with the 18 hour test is that Levi didn't do as he promised.

I have no interest in discussion Levi's motivations with you. You originally stated that your biggest problem with the test was the room temperature during the experiment. Logically speaking, a person's biggest problem with such an important experiment should merit a bit more dedicated independent study and analysis.

Your comments are disjointed and unfocused. You only seem to be comfortable when discussing the chaotic froth at the surface of these topics, while completely ignoring the fast flowing depths of cold fusion, which actually require some effort to understand.

You are correct that if the device turns out to be a fraud blame should be focused on those people with credibility that failed to see the deception while observing the device in action. The fact that none of these credible observers have changed their opinion on the legitimacy of the device after their hands on experience is of great importance, because they are the ones who will be held to account if fraud is discovered. Bleating about Rossi being a crook is unproductive and is logically flawed, but very easy to do, it is a facile argument.