Mary Yugo
Be patent, Mats Lewan will answer all your questions in his future publications.
Cambridge University Professor Huw Price on the ‘Reputation Trap’ of Cold Fusion (Update: Response in Popular Mechanics)
-
-
Mary, BBCK777 seems more than capable of answering for himself, but, I can't resist adding my thoughts....
1) Define "factory"... I wonder if Rossi's definition matches your's. I also wonder where the "factory" is/was, and how cold it gets in winter. I assume you haven't personally contacted every person on the planet, so how do you know there are no witnesses?
2) Please provide a reference from 2012 of Rossi saying he is "building" a robotic factory. Are you sure he didn't say "planning" or "designing"? Didn't [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] just buy/rent a large building that could become this factory?
3) Taken at face value Lugano suggests a single isotope of 62Ni is ultimately created.
4) This definitely needs a reference, as I believe you are prone to misinterpreting Rossi's statements.
QuotePlease explain why in all the different experiments Rossi has conducted, demonstrated or had done by the professors and reported in public, he has never allowed a calibration of the output measurement method? Early on, he did not allow it at all. In the so-called independent third party tests, he did not allow it over the higher range of temperatures where it was most critical to perform it.
Dunno why... But, do you think over $60m got invested on the back of these dubious results, or is it more likely there's been some more rigorous testing behind the scenes?QuotePlease explain how it is possible for an experiment to yield ash containing essentially 100% 62-nickel while the fuel contained the usual natural distribution of isotopes.
Dunno. Sounds like there's some reaction involving neutrons?QuoteExplain how the reactor can continue to run at full power (as in Lugano) when this conversion has taken place and 100% of the ash sample is not fuel.
The power output was actually increasing right up till the end of the Lugano test. Perhaps 62Ni is the just the most efficient "catalyst" of the reaction?QuotePlease explain why Rossi once said nickel was fuel (along with hydrogen) while now, nickel is a catalyst, according to Rossi, and by the way, this catalyst is used up 100%
Please explain why you just called it a fuel, but now it's a catalyst. Are you confused, forgetful, or dissembling? Or more seriously: I'm pretty sure Rossi doesn't have much more of an idea how his reactor works than anyone else does.QuotePlease explain why Rossi's COP (ratio of output to input power) was 200+ in experiments with Focardi around 2008, it was 30 when Levi tested it in February 2011, and it was 6 when Lewan, Kullander and Essen tested in 2011 and 2012.
Perhaps there is a tradeoff between COP and reliability. I could raise the turbo pressure on my car until it makes ~600bhp. I worry what the new service interval would be though.QuoteAnd then, the COP became 3 for the supposedly highly superior hot cat,
...that they chose not to run in self-sustaining mode.QuoteThomas Clarke showed that the real COP was probably 1. For bonus points, please explain why the Swedish professors never responded to Clarke's paper on this issue when asked politely to do so months and months ago.
Perhaps the Swedes are sick of hearing from people that they judge to be 'skeptileptic'?QuoteWhy is the supposed customer for the current megawatt plant's identity secret?
So that Gary Wright can't call the 'Nuclear Police' on him again?QuoteWhy does Rossi keep insisting the results could be positive or negative
Because [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] told him to. -
Hello! Earth to Colwyn! There are many more but these will do for 2--this is my favorite:
"5- we are already making the robotized line to make 1 million pieces per year and sure as heck I will put the E-Cats on the market, respecting the law."Have a few more and there are many others in JONP and interviews:
Andrea Rossi
May 31st, 2013 at 4:21 AM
JJE:
1- about 1 million. without any engagement, to be confirmed when we will send the offers with the price
2- this is a question to which is not easy to answer, but I can tell you that we are already preparing the robotized lines.
Warm Regards,
A.R.Andrea Rossi
March 28th, 2012 at 8:35 AM
Dear Greg Leonard:
My robotized line is already in construction, but not in operation.
The 1 MW plants are made under a different concept, therefore the robotized line is not useful for them
Thank you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.Andrea Rossi
March 23rd, 2012 at 8:13 PM
Dear Philippe George:
I want also to add that:
1- the robotized line to produce the E-Cats is already in production
2- the programs of the robots will be adjusted as soon as we will have the requirements from the certificators
3- we already got the green light from all the competent Authorities, so far the certifications are in course.
Warm Regards,
A.R.ndrea Rossi
March 16th, 2012 at 5:05 PM
Dear Marco S.:
We are giving essential preliminar information, now, because we will be able to give detailed description only in Autumn, when the production will start, after the factory will have been completed , the robotized line will be completed and the certifications will have been completed: we cannot finish the design of the E-Cats before the certificators give us all the necessary requirements.
Warm Regards,
A.R.Andrea Rossi
March 1st, 2012 at 2:45 PM
Dear Readers:
Somebody has put in the net the new that since our E-Cat has nuclear reactions it cannot be authorized, therefore it will never hit the market.
It is opportune to make clear that:
1- we are making the certification necessary to go in the market respecting the law
2- we already got important authorizations
3- the basic fact is that no radiation has ever been detected outside the E-Cat
4- when I will be able to release the theory of our process, it will be pretty clear that it is impossible for radiations exit the E-Cat.
5- we are already making the robotized line to make 1 million pieces per year and sure as heck I will put the E-Cats on the market, respecting the law.
Warm Regards,Andrea Rossi
February 19th, 2012 at 2:52 PM....The 1 MW plant is a magnificence, and the preparation of the robotized line to produce the E-Cats is in schedule to start the production within Autumn and the deliveries within the next Winter, with some luck; in the worst case, within 18 months we will deliver, and we will deliver at the prices we promised.
-
-
Receiving loud and clear Mary!
Making; preparing; in construction; in production; making; (in) preparation.
All of these are subtly different from "building", as you suggest, (OK I'll give you "in construction") but putting them all together suggests to me that he is really talking about a design stage.
The timescales mentioned are obviously wildly optimistic though, and I can see how you feel disappointed.
And regarding 'thought processes' perhaps you could try having some new ones sometimes? Your comments are highly predictable, in fact, almost repetitive. You demand answers from people, but clearly don't care about the responses, as your view never changes....
Also I can pretty much guarantee there is no reference that says he sold a 1MW plant to a "US Military organization"
-
Axil is begging: "Please provide references from the [Lugano] report and also use logic based on those references.
(Edit: Well, I see now that (s)he was begging on page 1 of this thread. Better late than never!)
With pleasure.
In order to take in consideration the ohmic losses in the wiring the resistances of the wires were calculated and reported. The calculated ohmic power losses during the main run are given in a table in the report. But they do not correlate with the current necessary to produce the reported electric input power. From data given for the first, short test you can calculate the resistance in the heating elements. Using this value in combination with the ohmic losses in the second test, the long term test, you find that the true electric power must have been around three times as big as reported. Incidentally this value is the same as the reported COP which after correction therefore shrinks to a reasonable one (1). -
Quote
In order to take in consideration the ohmic losses in the wiring the resistances of the wires were calculated and reported. The calculated ohmic power losses during the main run are given in a table in the report. But they do not correlate with the current necessary to produce the reported electric input power. From data given for the first, short test you can calculate the resistance in the heating elements. Using this value in combination with the ohmic losses in the second test, the long term test, you find that the true electric power must have been around three times as big as reported. Incidentally this value is the same as the reported COP which after correction therefore shrinks to a reasonable one (1).
H-G - I as you know found this argument convincing. But it relies on the experimental setup staying as described in the paper (Delta). IIf however it changes from Delta to Wye that gives a similar X3 difference between currents and powers, and could explain the ohmic heating results.
It is not a complete explanation, because the "acceleration" and teh X3 COP remains an anomaly. However, the IR measurement error explains both the acceleration , and the X3, perfectly. The within 10% dummy results are also explained because the temperature here was measured independently and "book value" total emissivity adjusted at low temperatures to make the IR temperature measurement correct. They did not do this calibration at higher temperatures.
Since this adjustment gives the X3 factor as well I prefer the Wye/Delta change explanation for the anomalous current.
This complex experiment is a great example of how:
(1) there are many possible anomalies - not easy to tell which is right
(2) anomalies do not have to be obvious and may only come to light after detailed scrutiny of all the evidence. -
Re Rossi lying:
(1) by omission - but at the time critical. The original isotopic analysis conveniently showed Cu in the ash, at a time when Rossi claimed his reaction was Ni -> Cu. Years later Rossi said the results were contaminated.
(2) on his blog, and to patent office, using Lugano test as evidence his stuff works. he must surely have known the quoted temperatures were wrong from the Al2O3 colour if nothing else (1400C is very different from 780C). But, in any case, the experimenters, who talk to him, had a clearly written write-up of their measurement error. Now, this is accepted by all. If Rossi did not himself make the same error then he was lying to them when looking at their preliminary calculations (he was on-site for a long time) and to the patent office using their - he would have known - wrong results. If he did make the same error he is lying now by not admitting this.
(3) He has previously said that he had no control over IP etc since the [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] deal. More recently he has said that he has complete control.
It is true that recently Rossi as been properly circumspect. You won't actually catch him saying now that his stuff ever works. But he is damned by past statements made when, basically, he has said whatever made his case look good with no interest in accuracy or truth.
-
On why the Swedes did not reply to my comment:
QuotePerhaps the Swedes are sick of hearing from people that they judge to be 'skeptileptic'?
If you are admitting their scientific judgement is this bad, then you surely cannot take their results seriously! I gave them a preprint of my paper, which is adequately written and describes their mistake clearly enough - though I could do better now. In any case you can check their error for yourself - all the data and calculations are on another thread here...
-
Thomas, if there had been an acceptable (disclosable) explanation of the apparent discrepancy in the data Rossi would not have had to invent the totally outlandish explanation that he did, namely that the heating element was made from a very advanced material the resistivity of which was extremely dependent on temperature. Admittedly such material do exist but it would be close to impossible to fit such an element into the volume that was available. Moreover, it is very hard to think of any reason to do it, power is better regulated by a thermocouple in a standard control loop if that is what you are trying to achieve.
Besides, it is explicitly stated in the Lugano report that the heating element is made from Inconel wire: "Three braided high-temperature grade Inconel cables exit from each of the two caps: these are the resistors wound in parallel non-overlapping coils inside the reactor."
The coils can also be seen in the photographs, Figures 12a, 12b.
-
were wrong from the Al2O3 colour if nothing else
Is this a reference to the color seen in Figures 12a and 12b of the Lugano writeup? -
I gave them a preprint of my paper, which is adequately written and describes their mistake clearly enough - though I could do better now.
Perhaps they are under NDA and not permitted to correspond on the topic? -
Quote
Perhaps they are under NDA and not permitted to correspond on the topic?
They said they would comment on criticism, and indeed have made some other comments (for example that clamp reversal was checked).
Also, were they under NDA, this would not be an independent test, as billed.
QuoteIs this a reference to the color seen in Figures 12a and 12b of the Lugano writeup?
I don't use those figuires as evidence of anything, since photography colour vbalance is very variable. But MFMP have independently published photos of reactor tubes at different termperatures. There is no way you could confuse 780C and 1400C. If Rossi had tested these things at 1400C he would know the Lugano testers were way too low.
Of course, I expect he made the same mistake they did, and thought this device worked for spurious reasons. That would be in line with all the other demos. You would think this was just a mistake, except that he has been very determined in refusing (over 10+ tests) specific advice on how to get mass flow calorimetry to work reliably:
keep fluid temps away from phase change
site thermocouples away from reactor (so they measure liquid temp not reactor body temp)
check system with controlWhen someone goes on making the same mistake repeatedly it is reasonable to think something more is at work than just random error.
-
Also, were they under NDA, this would not be an independent test, as billed.
I would be surprised indeed if they were not under NDA. I find it far more likely that they were under NDA than that they were not -- do you disagree? -
Rossi, I agree, says whatever comes to mind when he is pressed. I've detected no sense of consistency or concern with truth. It is so blatant that, no doubt like others here, I think it makes Rossi appear honest as the day is long - just so unworldly he does not engage with the English language.
In this case the figures speak for themselves. The wire is inconel. The setup chnage explains the current difference. The device acts precisely as an electric heater.
Crucially, the thermography error explains the COP difference between the two high temp tests, as well as the apparent COP > 1.
-
Perhaps they are under NDA and not permitted to correspond on the topic?
Eric,
Maybe so, but after the reports release they (professors) said they would answer to questions through Elforsk's website *after* the emissivity controversy erupted. They never did follow through on their word by answering the submitted questions.
Word is that they then took to their labs to try themselves to build their own Lugano replica, then test it.
-
Hi Shane,
Maybe so, but after the reports release they (professors) said they would answer to questions through Elforsk's website *after* the emissivity controversy erupted. They never did follow through on their word by answering the submitted questions.
Perhaps they changed their mind, or decided to postpone this kind of discussion, when they started to read some of the better critiques, so that they could get on top of things first and come to consensus on any internal disagreements?Word is that they then took to their labs to try themselves to build their own Lugano replica, then test it.
This sounds like a reasonable thing to do -- get details sorted out and speak from a position of knowledge. Do you disagree? -
A fair time for reflection (a month) is reasonable in cases where the experimental data is in doubt. Even then it has been more than long enough (6 months). In this case it is a calculation error. Like, if somone has computed 2+2=5. You'd expect a pretty quick admission, with an immediate correction, or possibly with a note that they would conduct further tests, and republish at that point.
Leaving a highly positive paper out there, used, presumably, to aid Rossi's fund-rasing and, certainly, to support ongoing patent applications, is highly problematic.
Rossi, when challenged in public, has laughed off the criticism calling me (I believe) a snake.
-
A fair time for reflection (a month) is reasonable in cases where the experimental data is in doubt. Even then it has been more than long enough (6 months). In this case it is a calculation error. Like, if somone has computed 2+2=5. You'd expect a pretty quick admission, with an immediate correction, or possibly with a note that they would conduct further tests, and republish at that point.
If we assume for the sake of argument that the authors have done something along the lines I have suggested, perhaps they do not automatically agree with your and others' critiques, but they want to thoroughly investigate any criticisms that have been made.Again, assuming they are in the midst of following up on all of this (perhaps instead they are simply stonewalling), it sounds like you disagree with the approach they have taken. Their opinion (hypothetically speaking) is that it's good to be thorough and perhaps do follow-up testing for themselves, and your opinion is that it's good to fess up right away, assuming NDA permits this. Your opinion of what constitutes good judgment is in disagreement with their opinion of what constitutes good judgment in this particular situation. We are in the realm of opinion at this point, a soft, mushy place.
Leaving a highly positive paper out there, used, presumably, to aid Rossi's fund-rasing and, certainly, to support ongoing patent applications, is highly problematic.
There's a lot at stake, clearly. A good communications strategy when faced with a hostile crowd would be to sort things out first and speak from a position of knowledge.Rossi, when challenged in public, has laughed off the criticism calling me (I believe) a snake.
It sounds like things have gotten personal.Rossi has done many baffling things. Perhaps he is paranoid schizophrenic and sees enemies around every corner. If we go with a sympathetic reading of his personal history, there is certainly reason for him to think this.
-
Eric,
If they were sure of their methodology, comfortable with their conclusions, then it would seem a waste of their time to try a Lugano do-over on their own dime and time? I can't help but feel that after their reading the critiques by Higgins/GSVIT (Thomas' came much later) maybe even Joshua's too, read the submitted questions, they realized they blew it. Did they blow it enough to completely invalidate the results, or just somewhat still remains a question mark. Thomas has it down to a COP 1.07, Higgins 1.2 (after initially recalculating to 2.1) while GSVIT didn't venture a guess. Note: Dr. McKubre weighed in but confessed little knowledge of thermography.
Along those lines, I would think that trying their own replication, as was rumored, is a desperation move to save face. Of course, that is only my opinion. But nonetheless, from a pure scientific standpoint, it is now null and void. A useless piece of paper without the authors commitment to defend it.
