Mat Lewan Meets Rossi in Sweden, Rossi Bidding on Factory For QuarkX Production

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Eric: "It is evident from the analyses here that calorimetry over a phase change is problematic and that a change of phase should be avoided .... Question: this point seems clear enough that I suspect it might be undergraduate-level knowledge for anyone who learns about calorimetry in college. Is this the case?"


    It is correct and what everyone has been saying since Rossi's early flawed phase change calorimetry.


    Setting aside the question of whether a test of a 1MW device ever made any sense at all, let's assume that a phase transition is required for a practical device. At the cost of reduced accuracy, presumably one can still avoid phase change calorimetry by using a heat exchanger with a second fluid that does not undergo a phase change. So boiling water does not by itself defeat a test. But if your reply above is correct, and it is indeed college-level knowledge that phase change calorimetry is problematic, a question to be pondered by anyone who cares is why phase change calorimetry (without a heat exchanger) has been used in so many of Rossi's tests. Using it for one or two tests, ok — live and learn. Using it repeatedly: this is indicative of something pathological.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    It is true that long-lived isotopes are not "over" for a long time. But the likely risks from now on are small, and overall the accident was much less bad than Chernobyl (my point).



    Fukushima was at least 5 time more worse than Chernobyl. But 99% of the fallout went out to the sea! The first man killed by Fuckushima radiation was an american officer on a plane carrier desk who was watching the szene...


    Just remember that in the burning spent fuel basin of reactor 4, the inventory held was 4 reactor fillings for three years each... In total there were 3 reactors blown off 4 reactors burning in the nr.4 fuel basin and some 5 more in the other fuel basins...


    Further on reactor 2 had MOX fuel on board, and also released plutonium. (Luckily mostly into ground water.)


    If there would have been one hour wind direction north/south Tokyo (all together 35 Million people) would now be a ghost town!!


    All American evacuated Tokyo on day two. The went straight down to Osaka!

    Quote from Kei

    Oh GodThe Global Warming meme now, aka using natural temperature cycles over millenia to focus discussions about environmental problems on something that would have happened without man's industrial revolution, and not debate much about pesticides, ocean fish population depletion, and other fun stuff...


    I've no idea how this relates to anything except it seems you are at odds with almost everyone over how significant AGW is as a long-term issue. OT for this thread but it does not strengthen your other scientific arguments (though I'm not sure I've ever heard them, so maybe you have none?)


    Quote from Kei

    What's your salary TC? I hope you get some fat cash


    Would you like to say what relevance my salary (high enough for me) has to anything, or perhaps instead you could try for coherent arguments?

    Quote

    Fukushima was at least 5 time more worse than Chernobyl. But 99% of the fallout went out to the sea! The first man killed by Fuckushima radiation was an american officer on a plane carrier desk who was watching the szene...Just remember that in the burning spent fuel basin of reactor 4, the inventory held was 4 reactor fillings for three years each... In total there were 3 reactors blown off 4 reactors burning in the nr.4 fuel basin and some 5 more in the other fuel basins...Further on reactor 2 had MOX fuel on board, and also released plutonium. (Luckily mostly into ground water.)If there would have been one hour wind direction north/south Tokyo (all together 35 Million people) would now be a ghost town!!All American evacuated Tokyo on day two. The went straight down to Osaka!


    But 99% did go out to sea so it was 1/10th as bad. You can always look at hypothetical worse scenarios, except that you are still not replying to my main point (repeated now twice and never answered) which is that the Fukushima and Chernobyl reactors were old and inherently unsafe designs. New reactors do not have those failure modes.


    You could argue reactors are unsafe due to terrorism - but the risk there from nuclear weapons (whether used as dirty bombs or for real) is much higher and independent of whether reactors are used.

    Quote from Eric

    But if your reply above is correct, and it is indeed college-level knowledge that phase change calorimetry is problematic, a question to be pondered by anyone who cares is why phase change calorimetry (without a heat exchanger) has been used in so many of Rossi's tests. Using it for one or two tests, ok — live and learn. Using it repeatedly: this is indicative of something pathological.


    To be fair, Rossi has had quite a few tests without phase change calorimetry. The obvious issues there have been measuring electrical input with average meters and thermocouple siting. And then there is Lugano which adds something new!


    It is an issue as to why test methodology keeps changing, but not in the (easy) way that would close previously identified loopholes without adding new ones. Reverting to previously known erroneous methods is perhaps more obviously pathological?

    Quote

    Fukushima was at least 5 time more worse than Chernobyl. But 99% of the fallout went out to the sea! The first man killed by Fuckushima radiation was an american officer on a plane carrier desk who was watching the szene...


    I wouldn't mind seeing a source cited for this little lot.


    I won't hold my breath.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    But 99% did go out to sea so it was 1/10th as bad. You can always look at hypothetical worse scenarios, except that you are still not replying to my main point (repeated now twice and never answered) which is that the Fukushima and Chernobyl reactors were old and inherently unsafe designs. New reactors do not have those failure modes.


    1) The Fukushima reactor had, like all other 1960's generation reactors, a self sustainable (electric-) powerless emergency cooling pump built in. To enable it, you had to make a manual interaction. But if You, for 40 years, never opened a valve... then You know the outcome...
    2) Even worse: The operators in place were not educated to use this valve. They missinterpreted an electric signal (light)...and believed its alraedy open...
    3) Most bad: The reactor was not laid out for a vertical shock > .25g . This is also true for all western (US) reactors still in use.... Since the Niigata quake Japanese reactors must withstand vertical shocks with 2g = eightfold stronger. Thus all nuclear plants, world wide, in service are unsafe...


    4) The enemy of technology is: Profit, profit, profit..., then stupid employees.


    BDW: Fukushima reactor two failed already from the quake. It was not the tsunami (but thereof .. missinterpreted an electric signal..)
    All (the modern) fission reactors produce spent fuel, which will burn if, for some reason, the water goes away...

    Jed,
    I have no idea where you are getting your estimates of the heat produced during the 1 MW test. What Rossi interview are you referring to, and what are the relevant numbers? Perhaps you are assuming that the incoming water in the 1 MW was heated to 100.1 C but not converted to steam? Is this correct? On what basis do you assume this? I see no public evidence for this. To the contrary, the report in Mats Lewan's blog (see https://animpossibleinvention.com/blog/) indicates that this is clearly not the case. See the quote below


    "I should also add that I have been in contact with people with insight into the MW report, that hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced—COP, Coefficient of Performance, is Output Energy/Input Energy) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration with Rossi. Nothing in the report itself seems to give any opportunity for large mistakes, invalidating the claim of a high COP (as opposed to claims by people having talked about the report with persons connected to IH)."


    I might add that an error by a factor of 50 (!) in the ERV's calorimetry seems hard to believe.


    This brings up an important (to me) question.


    Jed, in your analysis of the data provided to you by IH did you see any evidence of self-sustained mode (SSM), i.e. long periods during which there was no input power but significant output power?


    This seems to be a very important aspect of Rossi's invention.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Would you like to say what relevance my salary (high enough for me) has to anything, or perhaps instead you could try for coherent arguments?


    I mean, you could be a propagator of lies, obfuscation and disinformation (like with global warming or nuclear fission) on your free time, but that's really not a pleasant thought to entertain


    I find the response to Dewey remarkable and diagnostic of the state of much of the community interested in Rossi. Dewey Weaver is an insider, using his real name. He is stating matters that are largely within his personal knowledge. That's called "testimony." At common law, testimony is presumed true unless controverted. Now, Rossi also testifies to things.


    From supporters of Rossi, I don't see a demand that Rossi prove what he says. That comes from people who don't trust him. Rossi is not going to prove what he says, normally. It's all within what he has, for years, been keeping secret, except for what he chooses to reveal. Rossi's stand for many years has been, "If you don't trust me, go fly a kite."


    Here, Dewey Weaver is making statements. To prove these statements could involve disclosing what cannot be disclosed at this time. For example, the ERV report, or confidential reports given by the ERV to IH, which was, after all, paying him, we believe.


    What I find here is fascinating. Is it true? How would I know? The answer is, I don't.


    Dewey is obviously upset with Rossi. He's not the only one! If matters are more or less as Dewey is describing them, Rossi has done the planet trillions of dollars worth of damage. This may not be obvious to those who have only followed Rossi.


    Funding for regular cold fusion research largely collapsed over the last fiver years. Scientific experiments were working in watts, not kilowatts, and if someone was showing kilowatts, why bother with a few watts? That is now shifting, and more money is going into the more plodding, less spectacular claims of actual scientists. But the delay!


    I estimate the lost opportunity cost of delay in implementing cold fusion at about $1 trillion per year, times the probability that it could some day be made practical. What is that? We don't know for sure, but my own estimate is north of 90%. It's a tough problem in materials science, but we are learning how to solve those problems.


    I can guess at the reality behind all these accusations and counter-accusations, but I do not know. I have my judgments of the personalities involved, but I also am trained to recognize how flawed those can be.


    But if one wants advance information as to the IH position, and even though he is not speaking officially for IH, Dewey Weaver is the man. If you don't want to know, want to hide your head in the sand, and waste everyone's time, demand that he prove what he say. And you can duke it out with the pseudoskeptics will demand that Rossi's claims be proven.


    Dewey, however, is not a pseudoskeptic. Nor is Jed Rothwell. Jed Has invested more than twenty years of his life in cold fusion. Dewey is apparently angry because he believed Rossi, at least that is the story on the face of it.


    And then some are angry with Dewey for being an MFing liar or whatever people think. If I didn't know better, I'd think that human beings were hopelessly stupid.


    This isn't about "truth." I don't know the truth, but neither do most of those writing here. Dewey does know more about what he's writing about, and if he's lying, he may know. As may Rossi.


    There is another possibility that seems to escape people.


    Literal insanity. It happens. Again and again I see statements like "It would be insane for Rossi to claim this if it wasn't true." Well? Where does the assumption of Rossi sanity come from? His past? Have people actually read An Impossible Invention?


    Rossi is obviously high-functioning in certain ways. Do not confuse that with sanity.


    And, of course, Dewey could be completely off his rocker as well.


    And so could I.

    It doesn't help that Rossi has selected esteemed professors and experts, who manage to screw up in his favour. Whether he selected gullible help on purpose, or if they were just inept by themselves could be argued pointlessly forever. But if he had nothing, and his professors could have shown him that, would he be in this position today'? And if he had something, it sure would have been better to figure it out better, rather than blow the mundane results all out of proportion with huge errors, thereby steering the Rossi boat in the wrong direction, full steam ahead, based on huge mistakes.

    Mr. Weaver (if it is really him and not some PR drone) might be mad that Rossi took away the IP


    Jed Rothwell might be mad that Rossi might have the goods, taking away his fringe celebrity in the CF world -or he might have an agenda-


    Rossi might be a hypnotist or a really good scammer

    Abd,
    A few questions/comments:


    1) Where did Dewey write this?


    2) If IH had all of this information from Penon's draft reports, then why didn't they stop the test earlier?


    3) If Penon's draft reports indicate fraud, then why is Jed calling Penon an idiot?


    4) If Rossi is a fraud (and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence as well as tests to indicate that this is not the case) then I still don't
    believe that he has hurt LENR research at all. In fact, I think that he has greatly increased the interest in LENR and especially for Ni-H LENR. I would even argue that IH would not have invested in LENR without Rossi. Similarly, Piantelli was "drawn out of retirement" to restart his research (with machines creating 100 W not 1 W) as a result of Rossi. So, the only harm, if Rossi is a fraud, is to IH and to the time of those who have following this. On the other hand, it has been entertaining!


    You might stop insulting people and start making coherent arguments?

    On second thoughts:


    Kei. I reject your clear inference that you believe me to be a liar, posting untruths here.


    But somehow I don't think that statement will change your view one iota. Maybe my posts are unwelcome - my views here are pretty heretical. I'm quite happy to argue against the prevailing mood. But not to go on posting when my posts get people so upset they start calling me a deliberate liar, as you and a few others are now doing.


    So I'm back to watching, and LENR forum can revert to being a more liked by you and your ilk place.

    IH insiders think they have found a major flaw in the report with that 100.1 degrees C value.


    Dewey Weaver thinks he found proof of fraud because supposedly that 100.1C value has been copied and pasted even on maintenance days.


    Jed Rothwell has claimed multiple times that the 100.1 value comes from Rossi without being able to substantiate his claim.


    NOWHERE did Rossi publish a 100.1 value. Perhaps it is in the report that Jed got a snippet of. But that means that this is Penon's data, not Rossi.


    In fact Rossi has claimed multiple times that there was no such value. He even said the steam was superheated.


    So definitely 100.1C doesn't come from Rossi.



    Now my belief is that there is a simple explanation for that value being copied and pasted throughout the report's data. I believe that there is an explanation for it written in the report.



    @Dewey Weaver Did you actually read the entire report in detail? There might be a very simple explanation for the copy and paste.


    HINT: the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    The first man killed by Fuckushima radiation was an american officer on a plane carrier desk who was watching the szene...


    Fukushima.


    Someone asked for a source for this. Why is this relevant? Well, These fora are full of people who write things off the top of their heads, without caution, without caring about sources, and, often, being anonymous, not caring about credibility and the impact from it from writing nonsense.


    What can be found on this?
    http://www.motherjones.com/env…radiation-us-sailors-navy could be a source.
    Lawsuit. Little apparent merit, though that's what courts are for, to decide that. The story mentions "helicopter mechanic Theodor Holcomb, who served on the USS Reagan aircraft carrier, died of a rare cancer on April 24." That would be 2014. The Fukushima incident began in March, 2011. No other U.S. deaths are mentioned. The Wikipedia article has


    No deaths followed short term radiation exposure,[198] though there were a number of deaths in the evacuation of the nearby population,[199] while 15,884 died (as of 10 February 2014[200]) due to the earthquake and tsunami.


    A very specific story.The only sailor from Morales’ unit who received a clear diagnosis is Theodore Holcomb. He had cancer of the parathyroid gland and it killed him in April of 2014. He is the first casualty of the aid mission Tomodachi.


    A more complete and possibly more balanced report.


    Okay back here. The single reported death is not of an officer. It was more than three years after the incident. The cancer described does not appear to be likely to have been caused by the radiation exposure then. Relatively low-level radiation will cause an increased incidence of cancer. It can be difficult to distinguish this from natural incidence. In one report, there was talk of a metallic taste in the mouth. That is indeed an immediate characteristic of radiation and particularly relatively high levels. I have tasted that from an X-ray. An X-ray can be high exposure, but is only for a moment. As to what would be, there, continuous exposure, it would be expected that there would be,from high exposure like that, much more prompt radiation sickness.


    The claim that the first death was of an American officer has little foundation in fact. Rather, the group of sailors is one which has been carefully monitored and is currently involved in a lawsuit attempting to prove that the death was caused by the incident (and incompetent response). It is unclear that the death was from that incident, but there was a much higher population exposed in Japan. It is highly likely that there have been deaths, but not so elevated above, say, normal cancer levels that the deaths have been attributable to the accident. There are many stories that have scare language. Little did they know that they were dead men walking. Those people, except for one, are all still alive, apparently. We are all "dead men walking," because we will all die. What they were doing was risky. They knew that.


    This incident took place aboard the USS Reagan, a nuclear-powered supercarrier. With two nuclear reactors on board, they would have plenty of radiation detection equipment, dosimeters, etc., decontamination equipment, and training in dealing with radiation. There is evidence of elevated rates of thyroid cancer. That is believable, though still surprising. There are signs of incompetent response, perhaps.


    They were not, apparently "watching the scene." They were not that close. A "direct gamma shine" was detected on the ship of 0.6 millirem per hour. A millirem is 10 microsieverts. An accumulated dose of 10 millisieverts is said to increase lifetime cancer risk by 5 in 1000. So more than a thousand hours of exposure at that level would have that kind of impact on the crew exposed, i.e., on the deck.


    However, there were radionucleides released. The carrier allegedly sailed through a plume from the reactor accident. These, if breathed or ingested, could cause increased rates of thyroid cancer. That, in fact, is why iodine tablets are distributed, to minimize the uptake and storage in the thyroid of radioactive iodine.


    Still, this is not really relevant here. We all know that nuclear fission is dangerous. However, so is burning coal.



    Quote from LENR Calender

    HINT: the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point.


    What happens on this topic is that people read something, believe they understand it, and then repeat it as if it were fact.


    This particular piece of business comes from Rossi, in what he claimed in an interview with Mats Lewan.

    Quote

    The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop, and since the return temperature was varying, due to different load in the process of the customer, Rossi insisted that the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature would not be taken into account for calculating the thermal power produced by the MW plant. The ERV accepted. (This was conservative, decreasing the calculated thermal power. The main part of the calculated thermal power, however, derives from the water being evaporated when boiling).

    Quote


    [/i]This is not about "energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point. It is about the energy spent to heat the water from a variable temperature of the water to boiling temperature, i.e., from maybe 60 degrees, if that is what it was, to 100 C. The actual boiling temperature will depend on pressure.


    All of this is highly suspicious to people familiar with calorimetry and energy. Scientifically, and from an ordinary engineering point of view, one would want to know the energy production accurately, because a major concern will be reliability and variation.


    Only if one is focused entirely on creating a single major impression would one not care about these things. While it would be a very long shot, what immediately occurs to me would be that this could be a part of hiding the input water temperature. What if it was already boiling, what if it was already steam? (In other words, what if the "customer loop" just returns the steam, only somewhat cooled? Indeed, what if there is heating on the customer side? This could readily create "SSM." So knowing what is on the customer side could be important! (But it should be enough to know the cooling water input and output. and knowing about what the customer did with that heat would be a confirmation, not an absolute necessity. But confirmations are important! I have seen horrible calorimetry that looked good, until one looked at an independent measure!


    Absolutely necessary, I'd think, to consider that cooling water, its temperature and its pressure. Rossi, however, insisted on something else, and then claims that the ERV consented. However it is not clear how much Rossi knows about what the ERV actually did at points during the test. Dewey is claiming reports that were not provided to Rossi.
    [/i]

    @Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    I understand what I read and repeat, thank you very much.


    What you quoted frmo my post comes from Rossi's comment today:


    Quote

    Yes, the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point, as well as the energy necessary to raise the temperature of the water from circa 60-70 °C to the boiling point, to be conservative.Warm Regards,A.R.


    To respond to the rest of your post, I don't see how ignoring the heating of water from 60 to 100 and from 100 to 1xx is suspicious. It is just most conservative. Maybe less than 10% if we believe this post:http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…eskimo.com/msg109919.html



    If the ERV did his job, input and output temperature will be part of the ERV report. Just because they aren't used in the calculation doesn't mean they are ignored. You are jumping to conclusions here.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.