Talk-Polywell.org

Since no one has seen this yet I will kick off the next round of debate

http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/08 ... r-process/

Looks like the 2nd report that has been talked about is out(not sure if this is the final version or preprint).

LETS GET IT ON....<ding/><ding/><ding/>

Still nothing new. Still no definitive results that are published and can be reviewed. Still just a bunch of claims that cannot be verified independently in a normal review process.

I am debating investing the time to look at it or not.
So far my Rossifulloshit inclination is winning out over my desire to be critical.

paperburn1 wrote:Still nothing new. Still no definitive results that are published and can be reviewed. Still just a bunch of claims that cannot be verified independently in a normal review process.

how is this nothing new. Did you read the paper that was linked to??? In case you missed it here it is https://animpossibleinvention.files.wor ... submit.pdf

I havent completely read through the whole thing but it seems there is at least new evidence in support of Rossi to be found here. They actually carried out an analysis on the fuel before and after.

ladajo wrote:I am debating investing the time to look at it or not.
So far my Rossifulloshit inclination is winning out over my desire to be critical.

LOL, meh I think the paper it self is worth a read. Looks like they even submitted it to Journal of Physics D. Not sure if it will make it past peer review, though my untrained eye cannot see any issue with the paper other than no theory explaining the operation of the e-cat. The testers seemed to have decided to side step attempting to put forth a theory of operation. Instead they ran the e-cat for 32 days and recorded a COP of 3.2 - 3.6 (based on running the e-cat conservatively to get consistent results for analysis). Unlike the first test it looks like they were able to do an analysis of the fuel.

From the abstract

A sample of the fuel was carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before the run and after the run, using
several standard methods: XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES. The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was
found to agree with the natural composition before the run, while after the run it was found to have changed substantially.
Nuclear reactions are therefore indicated to be present in the run process, which however is hard to reconcile with the fact
that no radioactivity was detected outside the reactor during the run.

still using a poor method of measurement, same story different day.
And there is a simple way to remove doubt but they will not do it.

paperburn1 wrote:still using a poor method of measurement, same story different day.
And there is a simple way to remove doubt but they will not do it.

I assume your referring to them using thermal imaging to gauge heat generated?

That said, even if you threw out the claim of more energy being generated than what is being put in. How do you rationalize the isotopic analysis on the fuel before they started and the ash after they completed their run?

One scarcely knows where to start. I haven't even bothered to check the math yet, but several things stick out:

• It's the same gang that wrote the first, flawed report. All the usual suspects. Rossi talking about a blue-ribbon independent party comprised of many people was just talk.
• Skimming the paper, I see that Rossi was there. So his talk of having nothing to do with the verification was, well, just talk.
• Same measurement system as before. These guys have obviously never heard of flow calorimetry.
• Again, an AC (triac) controller to produce the heat--not the easiest thing to measure. Why not DC?
• If the thing, as the paper says, produces much more heat than is input, why does one need to apply power at all once the process has been started? There's been a lot of jabber about "controlling" things, but look, if it takes (for sake of argument) 500W to get the process going, and then the process produces 1000W, why does the process not continue after the initial excitation of 500W is removed?
• The paper claims isotopic changes in the reactants, but that was disputed by Essen in an earlier paper. So which is it?

What would have convinced me? Well, to start with, a testing panel who had never met Rossi before or during the test, who were skeptical about claims of CF, and who were skilled in calorimetry and metrology in general.

Obviously, this was too much to ask. Perhaps the third test, but not independent and not peer-reviewd. It settles nothing.

Asterix wrote: ...

• ...
• The paper claims isotopic changes in the reactants, but that was disputed by Essen in an earlier paper. So which is it?

The paper says they measured isotopic changes between analyzing the fuel before beginning the 32 day run and the ash at the end of the 32 day run. Since Essen was one of the authors I would like to think its safe to assume Essen's earlier paper being skeptical of the isotopic changes was done BEFORE he say the analysis.


As for the rest of your comment's while I agree it would have been nice to have an iron clad case. I doubt Rossi is looking for Iron Clad science. If anyone is going to attempt to prove that Rossi really doesnt have anything then they would need to prove that the isotopic analysis in this test is bunk.

birchoff wrote:As for the rest of your comment's while I agree it would have been nice to have an iron clad case. I doubt Rossi is looking for Iron Clad science. If anyone is going to attempt to prove that Rossi really doesnt have anything then they would need to prove that the isotopic analysis in this test is bunk.

And that's an important point. It seems that the first test was bunk, because the reaction products showed the normal (naturally-occurring) isotopic distribution of copper. Given the low content of any reaction differences and probability for contamination in the reaction chamber, I'm even less sanguine about the claimed change.

I haven't read it yet either, but I liked Asterix's comments. One of the reasons I think I recall seeing from the Rossi camp for the need of input heat was to control the reaction or it could runaway. I assume this means that input energy is reduced or raised in an inverse relationship to the total output energy. E.g. If the reaction gets past a certain threshold, a threshold that perhaps varies, it could melt down I am guessing.

Seems easy enough instead to cut the power and simply control flow rates of the heat sink, whether coolant like water, or air, as a control instead.

A standalone, unconnected ECat simply heating water, even if the water flow varies over a range over time in order to control it, with zero power cables connected to it would remove some doubts. The fact that this has never been addressed in these tests is disappointing and doesn't speak well of the value of this device being any novel energy source.

I do think that the ash analysis should be taken seriously if done correctly and in good faith. One small point in favor of this test I suppose.

JoeP wrote: ...

I do think that the ash analysis should be taken seriously if done correctly and in good faith. One small point in favor of this test I suppose.

I have skimmed this thing now with increased detail each time and it seems like the whole goal of this entire effort was the isotopic analysis. Which would explain the lack of concern with an iron clad energy measurement system. Looks like they only wanted a consistent way of measuring energy in and out. Which means one way of critiquing this paper would be to see if they did enough to make sure that their chosen energy measurement system was generating anomalous readings. I think the use of a dummy reactor was a good control attempt but that's the only thing of note that I can remember having skimmed the paper.

Mills and BLP all over again. Noise and more noise but it never seems to reach fruition.

Asterix wrote: [*] If the thing, as the paper says, produces much more heat than is input, why does one need to apply power at all once the process has been started? There's been a lot of jabber about "controlling" things, but look, if it takes (for sake of argument) 500W to get the process going, and then the process produces 1000W, why does the process not continue after the initial excitation of 500W is removed?

I am also a skeptic, but by memory, I think THEIR claim is that they can generate heat. And the device needs electricity to work. So they would need to convert the heat to electricity for it to keep working.

better than Black Light Power at least, who produces a bright light they claim to be as energetic as a pulsar, but interesting enough, they can look at without wearing torch masks (not that at the energy they claim the light produces, a torch mark would help)

Carl White wrote:Mills and BLP all over again. Noise and more noise but it never seems to reach fruition.

Well the latest news out of Rossi, a few weeks before today, is that they have a 1MW unit installed in a clients facility. So while you cannot run down to walmart to pick one up seems like they are making progress on making the idea come to fruition. Mills and BLP by my recollection are a bit behind comparatively.