Re the second clause, nobody argues. Re the first, since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you will get nothing BUT agrument. Fun, but mostly useless. Sigh.chrismb wrote: ... what should be the content of this thread is that no convincing demonstration has been done, and no [published] science has been done either.
10KW LENR Demonstrator?
That test was short, so you get the req kW-h easily from any number of possible chemical reactions. Don't forget the reactor used was never unwrapped so volume available is large.cg66 wrote:So if you look at the April 28th data Mats Lewan calculated a net energy of 2.327 kW. If we focus on measurement errors we have:1) by drawing current only at peak voltage you would get +40% power
Note that if you had standard thyristor-controlled power then a setting of approx 75% maximum would have this effect, though only 20% under-reading.
(2) By drawing pulses of current at high frequency you could get anomalous results. Whether larger or smaller than real would depend on ammeter used.
1) tomclark's 40% error in power measurement = an additional 151W
2) collected water in output bucket – 5.4 kg – if never converted to steam means only 52% of the water was converted to steam (out of 11.16kg total). This would reduce net energy by around 1142W.
This leaves a little over 1kW net (2327 – 151 – 1142).
Any other possible sources of measurement error? Is the adjustment for steam too high/too low? I know this doesn’t rule out fraud just looking for possible measurement errors in the setup of the April tests.
It is suspicious that as experiment get better controlled the apparent excess reduces, both Q & kW-h.
tomclarke,
The test that seems most conclusive to me was the one run for 18 hours by Dr. Levi.
See http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 108242.ece
The test that seems most conclusive to me was the one run for 18 hours by Dr. Levi.
See http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 108242.ece
Yes, that really is a load of codswallop.parallel wrote:What a load of codswallop!
3. Rossi has no duty to give away his invention to the world. I forecast he will have endless troubles with patents and as far as I know the US Patent Office still will not even review a patent based on cold fusion. I hope he leaves it to his patent attorney and tries to stay out of the mess himself. He is doing the right thing commercially to keep the catalyst a trade secret as long as he can.
If a person wants a patent, then they have a legal duty to ensure that they publish enough information that anyone can perform that invention. This is the covenant between the State and the inventor - tell the world your invention, and we'll let you have limited exclusive rights on it.
You just doooon't get this patent business at all, do you? Just like Rossi, it seems.
It was unchecked in too many ways to be useful:parallel wrote:tomclarke,
The test that seems most conclusive to me was the one run for 18 hours by Dr. Levi.
See http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 108242.ece
EDIT - water flow was checked, not clear how well
no independent power in check
no independent observer
Also:
That means most of the time water temperature differential was about 5C measured, and water output temperature therefore below room temp. Errors due to bad thermal contact with water or thermal contact with something at room temp would be very easy, and make this temp differential with no heat produced.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.
In short, this experiment provides no evidence.
But it does indicate how easy it is to think results are clearly positive when in fact they are not?
Last edited by tomclarke on Thu May 12, 2011 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The "competent people" took Rossi on trust. So Essen just assumed water flow rate was constant, without checking. Every experiment so far has easy loopholes. That is even without sleight of hand.parallel wrote:What a load of codswallop!
Just to set the record straight here is where I stand:
1. All the more obvious ways for fraud have been ruled out by one or more of the various demonstrations. Even quibbling about the power input measurement makes little sense as the possible error is far below the measured heat generated. Too many competent people have been allowed to inspect the experimental setup and scientists like Dr. Levi are unlikely to jeapodize careers for a month's fame.
If somone appears claiming to be the anti-Christ with no evidence of supernatural powers would you do this? The case is similar, and improbability of the sum total of Rossi's claims similarly unlikely.
2. Give Ing. Rossi the benefit of the doubt on what he says until proven otherwise.
Then why do the demos at all? Why invite scientists? Why allow this stuff to be published? This statement is not credible, especially because we know he wants money from investors.He says he is not interested in demonstrations beyond customer feedback that the E-Cat performs to spec.
Take such statements with a pinch of salt. He has definitely said that the E-cat mega buildout is funded from external investors.He has no incentive to please people like chrismb. He says he is busy building the promised 1 MW plant for a customer who will not pay him unless it works.
Either beyond ability or they have insufficient motivationHe says he has had an E-Cat in continuous operation for two years. Is it beyond the ability of the press to check that out?
He does not understand patent protection, which he cannot get without revealing how to make E-cats. But if secrecy is important, and he has money, why do demos at all?3. Rossi has no duty to give away his invention to the world. I forecast he will have endless troubles with patents and as far as I know the US Patent Office still will not even review a patent based on cold fusion. I hope he leaves it to his patent attorney and tries to stay out of the mess himself. He is doing the right thing commercially to keep the catalyst a trade secret as long as he can.
Academia is lots of free spirits. And any scientist who is involved in early successful cold fusion work will get plaudits. Rossi is clearly scientifically incapable, so a scientific explanation for working E-Cat would be a Nobel. You are saying that no serious scientist finds that strong inducement?4. Mainstream academia is against him. History shows that even MIT reportedly cooked the books on replicating Pons & Fleischmann. There is a LOT of money riding on hot fusion that has been and will be protected to keep grants coming. There is no satisfactory theory to explain the anomalous heat from any of the cold fusion setups. Some senior scientists like John R Huizenga of DOE have made careers out of debunking cold fusion.
And that is why we are most profoundly skeptical.5. I won't know if Rossi's E-Cat performs as well as he claims until (or if) the 1 MW plant surfaces by the end of the year. Nor will anyone else on this blog without more information than currently available.
I understand the feeling, and can succomb to it myself. But alas I see no evidence. And much contrary evidence.However I am persuaded that cold fusion is real.
Unfortunately Rossi has set up a situation where fraud from him seems a high probability option. It is his fault, he could allow proper testing of E-Cat - enough people have told him what to do without compromising black box.It is a matter of whether it produces enough heat to be useful. I find several posters to be needlessly insulting in their remarks about Ing. Rossi. Speculate all you want but keep it civil.
But maybe he does not want this.
How many patents does the Coka Cola company have? Yet somehow they maintain their secret recipe. Hmmm.chrismb wrote: You just doooon't get this patent business at all, do you? Just like Rossi, it seems.
What is his patent for? Is it for the machine that uses his secret powder? Could anyone make that machine to use his secret powder with the data provided? If so, the patent would be valid, even without revealing the secret powder. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if he wants to patent all possible methods to "burn" his secret powder before he actually sells any. Wise, perhaps.
From Rossi´s site:
1. Will there be two 1MW stations in november, 1 in greece and other in USA?
2. By this date, will you give full e-cats for certain universities to test them in any way they want?”
Rossi answers:
1- Not impossible
2- Yes: University of Bologna, University of Uppsala
So perhaps there will be two 1MW stations in November? Interesting...
1. Will there be two 1MW stations in november, 1 in greece and other in USA?
2. By this date, will you give full e-cats for certain universities to test them in any way they want?”
Rossi answers:
1- Not impossible
2- Yes: University of Bologna, University of Uppsala
So perhaps there will be two 1MW stations in November? Interesting...
Sorry for double-post but i found this interesting:
From
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/ ... ates.shtml
Lewan discussed his role in the tests and some additional thoughts with New Energy Times today.
"I personally did measurements: weighing water and hydrogen, measuring current and voltage, checking water flow at output, checking vapor flow," Lewan said.
"I also discussed the set-up before the test and, among other things, arranged that we keep the outlet hose visible at all times,” he said, “and not put it into the hole in the sink, as was done in previous tests.
"I’m still disappointed that I forgot one very simple check: I only measured the input current on one cable, the 'zero,' or 'cold' line. Obviously, this leaves open the possibility of deception if there is a large current on the phase, or 'hot,' line and it is distributed in part (1.6A) on the ‘zero’ ('cold') line and in part over the ground line (about 10A to achieve 2.5 kW).
"However, I discussed this with [Giuseppe] Levi and Rossi, and I regard it as highly improbable for several reasons, among them that Levi, in his 18-hour test, measured the input power with a watt meter controlling all the three cables."
From
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/ ... ates.shtml
Lewan discussed his role in the tests and some additional thoughts with New Energy Times today.
"I personally did measurements: weighing water and hydrogen, measuring current and voltage, checking water flow at output, checking vapor flow," Lewan said.
"I also discussed the set-up before the test and, among other things, arranged that we keep the outlet hose visible at all times,” he said, “and not put it into the hole in the sink, as was done in previous tests.
"I’m still disappointed that I forgot one very simple check: I only measured the input current on one cable, the 'zero,' or 'cold' line. Obviously, this leaves open the possibility of deception if there is a large current on the phase, or 'hot,' line and it is distributed in part (1.6A) on the ‘zero’ ('cold') line and in part over the ground line (about 10A to achieve 2.5 kW).
"However, I discussed this with [Giuseppe] Levi and Rossi, and I regard it as highly improbable for several reasons, among them that Levi, in his 18-hour test, measured the input power with a watt meter controlling all the three cables."
The water flow was checked many times. (What else did they have to do for 18 hours?)tomclarke wrote:It was unchecked in too many ways to be useful:parallel wrote:tomclarke,
The test that seems most conclusive to me was the one run for 18 hours by Dr. Levi.
See http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 108242.ece
EDIT - water flow was checked, not clear how well
no independent power in check
no independent observer
Also:That means most of the time water temperature differential was about 5C measured, and water output temperature therefore below room temp. Errors due to bad thermal contact with water or thermal contact with something at room temp would be very easy, and make this temp differential with no heat produced.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.
In short, this experiment provides no evidence.
But it does indicate how easy it is to think results are clearly positive when in fact they are not?
It is easy to measure a 5C temperature difference with confidence.
The power was measured on all lines with a wattmeter
There were other independent observers besides Dr. Levi.
I have no reason to doubt Dr.Levi's competence or sincerity.
Just out of curiosity, how do you suppose an output of 130 kW was obtained (as reported for a short time) by any of your favorite fraudulent methods?
Edit added.
Also, Dr. Levi said that he looked inside the control box. Essentially empty apart from small circuit boards.
Dr. Levi said that he was able to, and did, look at everything except the inside of the actual 1 liter reactor. If there had been other pipes or wires he would have seen them.
if the internet existed back in 1900, people would be saying exactly the same thing about the Wright Brothers, from 1903 (when SUPPOSEDLY they flew for the first time) until around 1908, when they did their FIRST public flight.rcain wrote:This whole Rossi-Focardi business is starting to make me quite angry. If they have something worthwhile, I believe they have a DUTY to show CREDIBLE evidence, and save us all this useless speculation.
Well, we must disagree about the 5C temp difference being clear. It is easy for thermometer to be touching wrong thing (in part) especially when it pokes through a hole in an E-Cat - as is the case in the ones we've seen, so you can't see precisely what it is in contact with. And when it is measuring on output water still below room temp!parallel wrote:The water flow was checked many times. (What else did they have to do for 18 hours?)tomclarke wrote:It was unchecked in too many ways to be useful:parallel wrote:tomclarke,
The test that seems most conclusive to me was the one run for 18 hours by Dr. Levi.
See http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 108242.ece
EDIT - water flow was checked, not clear how well
no independent power in check
no independent observer
Also:That means most of the time water temperature differential was about 5C measured, and water output temperature therefore below room temp. Errors due to bad thermal contact with water or thermal contact with something at room temp would be very easy, and make this temp differential with no heat produced.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.
In short, this experiment provides no evidence.
But it does indicate how easy it is to think results are clearly positive when in fact they are not?
It is easy to measure a 5C temperature difference with confidence.
The power was measured on all lines with a wattmeter
There were other independent observers besides Dr. Levi.
I have no reason to doubt Dr.Levi's competence or sincerity.
Just out of curiosity, how do you suppose an output of 130 kW was obtained (as reported for a short time) by any of your favorite fraudulent methods?
Edit added.
Also, Dr. Levi said that he looked inside the control box. Essentially empty apart from small circuit boards.
Dr. Levi said that he was able to, and did, look at everything except the inside of the actual 1 liter reactor. If there had been other pipes or wires he would have seen them.
I have no record of other observers apart from Levi, who is clearly a friendly observer.
Tom
Tom,
You seem to be assuming that Dr. Levi is either incompetent or untrustworthy.
He maybe, but I have no reason to think so and prefer to start by giving the benefit of the doubt.
When you look at a lot of published papers, supposedly peer reviewed, you see they don't even look at the data most of the time. Climate science is (in)famous for this. But many people just take their word for it. Why do you consider this a special case? Because you don't think cold fusion exists?
You seem to be assuming that Dr. Levi is either incompetent or untrustworthy.
He maybe, but I have no reason to think so and prefer to start by giving the benefit of the doubt.
When you look at a lot of published papers, supposedly peer reviewed, you see they don't even look at the data most of the time. Climate science is (in)famous for this. But many people just take their word for it. Why do you consider this a special case? Because you don't think cold fusion exists?
And how many clones of Coke that are just as good there are around?KitemanSA wrote:How many patents does the Coka Cola company have? Yet somehow they maintain their secret recipe. Hmmm.chrismb wrote: You just doooon't get this patent business at all, do you? Just like Rossi, it seems.
What is his patent for? Is it for the machine that uses his secret powder? Could anyone make that machine to use his secret powder with the data provided? If so, the patent would be valid, even without revealing the secret powder. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if he wants to patent all possible methods to "burn" his secret powder before he actually sells any. Wise, perhaps.
Only in my local supermarket there are 5.
Additionally it was a different period. They had lot of time to establish the brand and keep leadership through heavy investments in publicity.
Today you buy Coke because of the name, not becouse of the taste (well, at least here).
In the case of Rossi device as soon as (if) he ships the first reactor it will be cut open and the powder inside carefully analyzed and replicated.
He will make money anyhow, but market will be flooded by alternatives in a matter of months and he will have little to no protection as everyone will have his "secret recipe".
That's funny.parallel wrote:When you look at a lot of published papers, supposedly peer reviewed, you see they don't even look at the data most of the time. Climate science is (in)famous for this. But many people just take their word for it. Why do you consider this a special case? Because you don't think cold fusion exists?
You do not believe climate science but you do believe Rossi device?
Let me explain to you.
The same logic that brings people to believe that "climate science" is true is the one that you are applying to believe that Rossi device works.
If "many people" want to believe climate science or the Rossi device is up to them but no one that understands how science works will support any-two of these theories unless proper experimental data are supplied.
Rossi and climate science are on the same level for now. Big claims but little to no data.