A third party room-sized calorimeter available to LENR researchers

1st Official Post

    If Andrea Rossi will not be able to market its E-Cat, LENR supporters must find a way to break the skepticism that still dominates much of mainstream science.


    Being said I'm not a technician or or a physical or nuclear scientist nor an engineer, I would like to launch an idea.


    I see that in most of the tests made by Andrea Rossi or replicas by other scientists, one of the main problems is the reliability of COP value. There are always doubts about the methodology used, especially about the correct use of a calorimeter and / or the lack of an independent third party validation.


    It would be technically possible a room equipped for calorimetric measurements managed by independent third part, available to LENR researchers?


    If you think this is possible my idea is to bring this idea through social media to the attention of giants such as Google or to wealthy tycoons like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg, or even big statal organizations like NASA.
    They will have to support not only the economic and technical costs of the realization of this calorimeter room, but above all to certify the results.


    It is not necessary that the tested devices produce a high COP for a long period, as Rossi need to market its devices.


    The aim of these "third part room sized calorimeters" is simply is to establish, beyond all doubt, a heat generation not justified by chemical reactions.


    I hope people in this forum can give a more technical "dress" to this idea.

    • Official Post

    Such a device would be very useful, Angelo. There are already some available - for a price- I can think of 2 in the USA. There is 'MOAC'' - the Mother Of All Calorimenters - at Puthoff's 'Earth Sciences' in Austin Texas, and another at SRI. I'm sure there are more. In the UK I know of another two, one at National Physical Laboratory and another at Imperial College. (Which last may not be readily available due to expense and pressure of work.) There are also at least 2 others at TUI labs in Germany and (I think) France. There are several at University labs in Italy and at ENEA too.


    The real problem is to design and build good experiments it seems, those that make calorimetry almost unnecessary. But that is just my opinion.

    • Official Post

    I remember some scientist, and even MFMP designer air calorimeters of the size of a dog bone.
    I remember some 19-20th century experiment to measure the metabolism of human with a calorimeter.


    My nave idea could be to take an unused refrigeration room, and manage to make a servo controlled isothermal calorimetry, probably at very higher temperature (because a normal refrigeration room is not designed to pump kW of heat) or with additional cooling, but that is naive.
    or course it need calibration (and probably stirring with fans).

    Alain Smith talks about a "good experiments" where "good" maybe means "always repeatable" but for the moment the state of the art of replicability is "often" or "sometimes" not always.
    According to Hank Mills, enough evidence has been provided to substantiate that something happen beyond a reasonable doubt, but evidently not enough to break mass media disinterest and mainstream science's ostracism.


    My idea about a "third part room sized calorimeter" (tprsc) wanted to be also a kind of Trojan horse to get funds


    A big organization or a tycoon could be scared from the negative aura around LENR researches, but a measuring device is something neutral, also valid for skeptics in case of negative evidence.


    Suppose this tprsc records a single positive experiment, well documented beyond a reasonable doubt. "Houston, We've Got a Problem" must think a skeptic also.


    In addition to the "anomalus heat generation" the case of study become the same "random replicability"

    • Official Post

    @Angelo V.
    Could you find a suitable home for such a system and operate it yourself? What would the temperature limits of the system be? What independent body will check the calibration? Do you know how much it will cost? What would you charge for access? Who would your clients be? ?(


    These are the questions you should think about before asking anyone for funding.

    @Alan Smith Thanks Alan for the attention but don't misunderstand me, I respect your work, what are you doing here. I'm not a LENR expert and I'm not asking anybody for funds. And obviously I haven't answers to your questions. Maybe is only a misunderstanding due to my poor english.
    I hope the involvement of a large organization relates to the measurement and certification of experiments on LENR. then researchers should just focus on the experiment itself

    A room sized calorimeter for LENR work would be absurd. But the calorimeter below gives good performance and repeatability and calibration under a wide range of power levels compatible with claims for ecats of all types and descriptions:


    https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…te-calorimetria-a-flusso/


    Google translate works well with this paper. This would be all that IH would need to blow Rossi completely out of the water with respect to the so-called hot cat. For the old water cooled low temp ecats, one of Storm's Seebeck Effect calorimeters would work fine, whether commercial in origin, or home made.


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtomakea.pdf


    If IH had bothered to do a proper search, or consulted with anyone really following the Rossi story objectively, they would have found both.


    Room sized calorimeters, even some large enough for large animals, have been built for research in metabolism and cancer. For example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1996633 But I can see no reason to consider these for LENR work. Rossi's idea of running a megawatt machine for a year, to prove that his theory works, has been beyond stupid and inane since the first time the crook proposed it. And IH was incredibly incompetent to have approved such a thing.

    This thread is about a room sized calorimeter. This is not the place to discuss pseudoskepticism, academic physicists, the existence of a deity, belief formation, crowd consensus, the number of talkers versus doers in LENR, and so on. In order to maintain clarity of thought, you owe it to LENR Forum readers to split up your discussion and append the scattered fragments to existing threads, each pertinent to that fragment, or to start new threads if necessary.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Eric Walker

    This thread is about a room sized calorimeter. This is not the place to discuss pseudoskepticism, academic physicists, the existence of a deity, belief formation, crowd consensus, the number of talkers versus doers in LENR, and so on. In order to maintain clarity of thought, you owe it to LENR Forum readers to split up your discussion and append the scattered fragments to existing threads, each pertinent to that fragment, or to start new threads if necessary.


    Is this the same Eric who so recently chided me, saying .... "I honestly don't see why you and others imagine that the threads on this forum will ever be nicely organized. I suggest you abandon the thought as impractical and not worthwhile. It disrupts the natural flow of conversation and does not make following the threads, which are already a jumble, any easier."

    I'm quite happy my thread has generated an interesting epistemological debate beside many "on topic" answers (thanks to all).


    Somebody believes a room sized calorimeter a silly idea in the field of LENR research.
    Probably that's true.
    But I want to remember the full title of my thread:
    "A third part room sized calorimeter" and no one focused his answer on the first two words, "third part", and this is a key part of my "silly" idea.
    Maybe the correct thread's title was: "A third part measurement device" (could be the title of a new thread started by a forum administrator)
    The basis idea is to separate who conducts the experiment on who verifies the results greatly decreasing the costs sustained by the experimenters.
    The "third part" take care of calorimetric and power input measurements.
    The "third part" may also setup suitable equipments to detect radiations (for safety reason the room could be shielded) and also make a spectrum analysis.
    Finally the "third part" perform a chemical and isotopic analysis before and after the experiment.
    Pursuing in this naive idea the "third part" give the rules to follow to get access to the measurement device.
    The third part cannot be a known proponent of LENR research and at least one of his engineer (better not all) must be a known skeptic.
    Obviously the third part cannot be MFMP.
    Third part's analysis must be public as all details about the given experiment.
    But who can finance this measurement device?
    Simply every organization who has more than one million dollar to invest for for the sake of science.
    If my idea worth more than a penny the help of members of this forum is essential to get a little chance to be realized so I state here my idea is on the realm of public domain.


    For example Engineer48 could write a schema of a third part measurement device with an estimate of minimum costs. THHuxley could be one of the engineers of the "Third part". Etc


    But maybe it's only a naive idea of a profane feeling the due to share it.

    Quote from Angelo V.

    Somebody believes a room sized calorimeter a silly idea in the field of LENR research.


    An actual room sized calorimeter is a bad idea. It would be a nightmare to work with. There are some calorimeters large enough to hold a person, but they are not suitable for cold fusion studies. In 1989, Richard Oriani used a calorimeter designed to hold the baby in cold fusion studies. This was small enough to be practical, and sensitive enough to measure the effect.


    Generally speaking, the calorimeter is part of the experiment itself. It is usually part of the cell. It has to be designed for the range of temperatures and for the size of the equipment. The calorimeter is not usually a separate object. Although in the case of a Seebeck envelope calorimeter it may be.

    Quote from Angelo V.

    The aim of these "third part room sized calorimeters" is simply is to establish, beyond all doubt, a heat generation not justified by chemical reactions.


    Ciao Angelo,
    I understand your anxiety to see the main doubt on LENR, its capability to generate excess heat, be resolved once forever. But the answer has been already given long ago by the scientific community, and is negative. Unfortunately a tiny minority of such community, I'm referring to a few public employees, is allowed to keep on deceiving the public, and they are the main responsible of the residual doubts which still survive.


    Anyway, whoever is well aware that his device is unable to produce any excess heat, will never accept to submit it to a real independent test. The only way you can get a confirmation of how it works is looking at data which have been inadvertently released to the public.


    With this respect, and with reference to your proposal, I think you can find interesting to give a look to the data, coming from a very rudimental and unintentional room sized calorimeter.


    The data come from the test on the so called fat-cat held in Bologna on October 6, 2011, and they are shown in the following jpeg.
    http://i.imgur.com/U9T2tsO.jpg


    As an Italian, you can take advantage also from the description given in the original comment where the jpeg was first posted (1). For the others, I put here below the edited Google translation of the scripts on the jpeg.



    The temperature data come from the spreadsheet (2) published by Lewan the day after the test (3). In his report (4), published the same day, all the attention was devoted to the primary and the secondary cooling loops, both with flowing water. The last graph in this report shows the last 4 hours of the input (Series 2) and output (Series 3) temperatures of the primary loop. The same graph includes the room temperature (Series 3) which appears nearly constant. But if you consider only this last signal and expand the vertical axis, you get the clear trend of a third cooling loop, the ambient air, whose curve is shown in the jpeg's graph for the entire duration of the test. The blue curves (thick: test data, thin: average trend) show that the room begins to cool down not much later than the shutting off of the auxiliary electric heater placed inside the fat-cat. But if the Ecat was really able to produce 2-3 kW after that time, as claimed in the conclusions of the Lewan's report, the room temperature should have followed a trend similar to the thin red line, with a much more delayed cooling phase.


    So, that test allows us to see a rudimental but quite meaningful room sized calorimetry, based on inadvertently released data, the only ones you can get about a device that is known to be unable to override the laws of the physics.


    (1) http://www.energeticambiente.i…la-151.html#post119267184
    (2) https://animpossibleinvention.…emp-data-ecat_6_10_11.xls
    (3) http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/…ces-proof-of-heat-6419717
    (4) https://animpossibleinvention.…st-of-e-cat-october-6.pdf

    @Ascoli65
    Ciao Ascoli65, thank you for your answer.
    I'm not qualified to be a lawyer of the believers in the potential of LENR.
    When the truth is not evident, in a debate, always wins who have more arguments, and you will definitely have a lot of technical arguments more than me.


    I am not sufficiently trained in thermodynamics to answer on the merits,
    I leave the answer to any others in this forum, I can only say that the errors, or omissions, even repeated, even if intentional for commercial end or scientific prestige, prove nothing, except that we cannot trust in the people who did it


    Cold fusion does not exist? Only the result of procedural errors, incorrect observations and measurements, amplified by psychological reasons?


    Or is there a real physical phenomenon to be investigated and understood?


    According to some people, money spent by the INFN (in Italy) in LENR research field, already represents a big waste, but I see it differently and I believe in the intellectual honesty of many who still work there.


    Opening this thread, my purpose was to suggest a possible way for those who want to invest in this area of research without compromising himself with the aura of negativity that surrounds it.


    Separate the experiment's heart from the performance review, but leaving the positive spirit of the investigator.


    If you can rule out the scam and the fraudulence than any anomaly implies that you have to better refine the measurement set or there is a strange phenomenon to be investigated.

    Hi Angelo - sorry for ignoring post earlier.


    Well I'd be happy to help if could subject to other commitments.


    Just a point about why tests are difficult to judge.


    You don't need fraud, bad intentions, or even stupidity. Calorimetry (and other measurement techniques, radiation, low-levels of transmutation, etc) all come with artifacts. Some of these require skill in the specific equipment used (which I and most others looking at this do not have) some require ability to analyse unusual systems and detect ways in which control methods etc might fail.


    The point is that no one person is going to give an authoritative answer to this. Even (maybe especially) an expert in calorimetry - if presented with test conditions which are unusual - will miss things. Amateurs, no matter how clever and hard-working - will miss other things.


    So what is needed is iterative, and is more or less what MFMP are doing. The crowd sourced analysis idea works really well. I think the problems they now have are:


    (1) They are quite clearly biassed. They badly want to find evidence of LENR. It makes their judgments of what is likely less easy for others to believe. Were I them I would highlight, for every experiment, the ongoing "skeptical" arguments to show that they were carefully considering that side of things. They maybe do this - but I find their site impenetrable now - with blog posts not summarising properly and comments impossible to navigate.


    (2) Since the "Signal" they have been proselytising as well as researching. Bad combination.


    If the issue is testing Rossi's devices safely, then there is much less of a problem given the will to do so because the claimed behaviour is easily, and safely, detectable. It would require Rossi to comply with test methodologies from third party competent people, and that only happened some time after IH got involved. But I don't think there is any scientific problem here. The Lugano test gives everyone the wrong idea. It was an inherently very complex and difficult to validate methodology. They got it wrong. But any normal tester (as was said at the time) would use a safer method.


    Regards, THH

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    I do prefer that any obviously mocking and impersonating ID be dropped/banned.... And this "George Hody" certainly is one


    I'm a verified user old chap. And unfailingly polite, unlike 'some others'.

    To stay in the spirit of the thread I started, I would ask one or two questions:


    Suppose a tycoon is one of the readers of this forum, fascinated by research on LENR wants to give an important economic contribution, let's say 10 million USD


    [What could be an amount, used in the best way, to give a strong acceleration to the research?]


    What would be the best way to use his money?

    • Finance at university level projects
    • Start a new scientific journal peer revied with open minds to the research on LENR or fund an existing one provided that proves not to be prejudiced.
    • Form a company that just try to replicate the experiments in progress
    • Establish an award for all researchers, rather two prizes, one for practice and one for theory in the LENR field.
    • Realize one or more independent laboratories for all disponbile measures for free or at low cost to anyone with the right requirements.
    • Finance the project MFMP demanding the utmost transparency in the exposition of results.
    • Finance a new project based on crowd sourced analysis
    • Convince Andrea Rossi to reveal his secrets or his lies.
    • Forget LENR and do charity in the manner they prefer.

    If not in the above list, what could be the best way to use his money?


    I apologize in advance if my interactions with your answers will be extremely limited.

    • Official Post

    I'e split the sthread.
    sorry not to have dared before.
    method is
    - check each post
    - go to the forum (not thread)
    - click on "XX posts selected" click on insert into a new thread


    to merge post into an existing one, go the that existing target thread, go bottom and choose the merge into existing thread


    (label may be approximative)

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.