Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Zeus46

Last I recall you were refusing to discuss anecodotal accounts - a rather weak final argument, I felt.

It not a final argument. it is an admission that I am incapable of changing the minds of fanatics with logic.

Quote from bocijn

an alleged scientist wrote re: "Mizuno bucket'

"I also wrote, that if there was no heater and the water was at room temp, it was highly unlikely that any significant evaporation would occur."

The converse of this statement is

"If significant evaporation occurred then it is highly likely that there was a heater "

Absolutely correct Bocijn. And that is *also* what I said. Why didn't you quote that too? Oh, I see. You are the Obstinate Misquoter's understudy. I guess I should have seen that given you lead off with an ad hominem attack.

P.S. You never did respond to this. Planning on doing so I hope?

Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

bocijn wrote:

Are you going to be like Shanahan who alleges ad nauseam but won't show his calculations.?

kirkshanahan wrote:

To what do you refer?

Quote from maryyugo

RobertBryant

Peachy! Please ask the professor to do it again. Properly recorded and observed by others of course.

Mary,

Won't happen.

Because if it ever did happen, you can be sure the professor would have immediately replicated it many, many times, then had it attended for additional replications,

Which I can find no record of.

Quote from kirkshanahan

In my mind "a large, heavy stainless steel cell in the bucket. It was hot. Too hot to touch. The thermocouple showed it was over 100 deg C inside." is not a 'heater'. It is a hot object.

A hot object that remains hot for several days is a heater. What else would it be?

Once again, your statements have devolved into crackpot nonsense.

Quote from kirkshanahan

So for the too hot to touch, large, heavy stainless steel cell in the bucket to be a heater it would need either a) power inputs, like wires from a power supply, or b) an internal heat source, such as kerosene, a battery, or maybe even a LENR reactor.

This was a LENR reactor. That's the whole point. It produced massive excess heat before it was turned off, far beyond the limits of chemistry, and many megajoules of heat after it was turned off and placed in the bucket. We know it was a LENR reactor because the only thing inside was heavy water, a palladium cathode, and a platinum anode. That's a LENR reactor, by definition.

It was not an electric heater because there were no wires going into it when it was in the bucket.

It could not have been kerosene or any other chemical heat source. It exceeded the limits of that thousands if times over, and there was no oxygen in the cell.

Quote from kirkshanahan

What I did was to assume a large hot object was dropped in a bucket of water on a low humidity day in a well-ventilated abandoned laboratory, possibly overrun with vermin, and attempt to compute what might have happened, and then compare that to what was claimed to have happened.

Pure crackpottery! Especially the part about the vermin. Where did you get that notion, anyway? You are delusional.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Probably not, but we actually don't know because HE NEVER REPLICATED THE EXPERIMENT.))

Fleischmann and Pons and others replicated it hundreds of times.

Quote from JedRothwell

Fleischmann and Pons and others replicated it hundreds of times.

Not!

Quote from maryyugo

Even if you believe Mizuno's anecdote, it does not mean that anything remained hot for several days unless someone recorded temperatures of the water . . .

During the event, Mizuno measured the temperature of the cell by two methods:

1. Feeling it. It remained hot to the touch. This method is foolproof.

2. Measuring the thermocouple voltage. The thermocouple was disconnected from the pen recorder, so there is no continuous record, but he measured it manually once or twice a day and wrote down the numbers.

You do not need to record the temperature of the water, only the cell. The cell was immersed in the water, so the water had to be hot. However, it is obvious the water was warm because it all evaporated several times. That proof is as good as a record of the water temperature would be.

Quote from maryyugo

This should be so simple. It seems like a watershed experiment. A hallmark example of LENR. Someone, preferably with help from Mizuno, should simply do it again, with modern instrumentation and documentation

As I have pointed out here many, many times, Fleischmann and Pons did this test hundreds of times, with the best instrumentation available. They documented it in a major, peer-reviewed journal. You do not believe them. You do not understand their experiment. So this does not convince you.

No other replication would convince you, no matter how good it was, or how many times repeated.

Quote from maryyugo

It doesn't help to suggest that P&F's claims to much smaller yields are somehow the same thing.

Their "yield" (power) was bigger, not smaller. Energy was lower because the mass of palladium was smaller. Of course it is the same thing. It was the same materials under the same conditions.

You think their yield was smaller because you are incapable of doing simple arithmetic. That is also why you can't tell the difference between 6 seconds and 3 hours. You do not realize it is the same effect because you do not understand the first thing about experimental science. I suggest you give up and stop trying to understand this field. It is over your head. Every assertion you make about it is wrong, misinformed or absurd.

Quote from maryyugo

Is there a (translated) written record of these to see?

Nope. You'll have to take his word for it. I have a copy of the pen recorder trace which shows excess heat leading up to the event, but I do not have a copy of the log book.

If you don't trust Mizuno's account, you should say so and drop the subject. He and the others who claim they have seen heat after death could be lying. If that's what you think, there is nothing more to be said.

Quote from maryyugo

The reason it does not convince me is that IIRC, it was at a much lower level of energy. If that's wrong, let's see the data again.

Yes, it was less energy, but it was 1,800 times more than the chemical energy in the cell could have produced, and 20,000 times more power, as shown in the paper. But of course you have not read the paper and you are innumerate so you will not understand that. Perhaps you will understand this comparison I gave before. This is as if you saw someone jump over the Empire State Building, and you said: "That's not convincing; let's see him jump over Mount Everest instead."

Let me explain about numbers. If you say 1,800 is "not convincing" for no reason, with no scientific justification, you could -- and I am sure you would -- reject 1.8 million or 1.8 billion for no reason. No number will satisfy you, mainly because you cannot tell a big number from a small one, apparently.

Quote from maryyugo

The refuge of the believer. I won't show you mine because you won't believe it anyway.

I won't show you?!? What is that supposed to mean? What are you talking about? I have uploaded all of the papers, the introduction to the book, and the book itself in Amazon Kindle format. What more do you want me to do? How can I "show you" more?

Oh, I forgot. You never look. You never read anything. In your world, it is my fault that you don't see something because you refuse to look. Got it!

From first hand reports, the quark is a small tube that is transparent. Light comes out of that tube and is very intense. That plasma containment tube holds a plasma at 2700 °C. The material that that plasma containment tube is made of must hold together for 1 year without leaking. This containment tube material is where a failure of the quark will come from.

My guess is that this tube material is Boron nitride. This isolator begins to sublimate at 2,973 °C. My guess is that Rossi has figured at a way to keep the plasma temperature lower than 2700 °C so that the plasma is not so hard on the tube material. For example, the theory paper COP calculation is based on a temperature of 2362.85 °C

As shown in Rossi's theory paper, It also come to mind that the COP estimation of the Quark was calculated with the assumption that the light coming from the quark was produced by blackbody radiation. Such an assumption may be wrong,This light from the Quake may not be produced by black body radiation.

The light may be coming from a side-peak emission of a polariton bose condensation

Marrying superconductors, lasers, and Bose-Einstein condensates

June 17, 2016 by Sheri Ledbetter

http://phys.org/news/2016-06-s…einstein-condensates.html

also see

High-energy side-peak emission of exciton-polariton condensates in high density regime

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25655

Quote from maryyugo

As I keep trying to convince Jed, "Size Matters!"

No, that is not how science works. If that were true, the 1942 Chicago Pile-1 reactor would be inconsequential and only the 1945 atomic bomb test would matter. That makes no sense. Without the reactor there would have been no bomb.

Size does not matter. Signal to noise ratios matter. A size that disproves a hypothesis by 4 orders of magnitude is just as convincing as one that disproves it by 6 or 8 orders. That is to say, heat beyond the limits of chemistry by a factor of 1,800 is just as significant as heat that exceeds those limits by 1.8 million or a billion. The additional zeros make no difference. They add nothing to confidence or significance. They are not "more convincing."

This is a simple concept. It is fundamental to the scientific method. This is why the 1 W reaction in the Chicago Pile-1 was as convincing to the scientists as the 15 kiloton bomb explosion. As you see from this statement above, Yugo does not understand this concept because she is innumerate, she does not understand how numbers work or what "significance" means, and she does not understand the fundamentals of experimental science.

Quote from maryyugo

Not convincing because it takes place in a complex apparatus full of error prone areas and low level measurements. So not for "no reason."

That is not even slightly true. There is nothing complex about a boil-off experiment. It is one of simplest, oldest and most reliable ways to measure enthalpy. Are you telling us that the heat of vaporization of water is not well established? Do you seriously doubt it is 2257 j/g? You have no idea how ridiculous that makes you look. Do you also dispute the force of gravity on earth? It is not 9.8 m/s²?

There are no errors in this experiment. You have not found any, and neither did Morrison. Saying "there are error prone areas" means nothing, since you have not found any. You might as well claim there are invisible pink unicorns in your garden.

Oh, and don't bother posting any bullshit about how entrained water left the cell unboiled. People who actually read the papers (unlike you) will know that Fleischmann showed that did not happen. He demonstrated it several ways. They will see you don't know that because you did not read the paper and you wouldn't understand it if you did. It is like your claim that boils down to saying we don't know the heat of vaporization. It makes you look silly.

Quote from maryyugo

[Regarding your error by a factor of 1,800]

Silly crap like the above doesn't earn you respect.

YOU got the wrong answer by 4 orders of magnitude. I pointed it out, and you call that "silly crap"??? Are you kidding? Instead of admitting you are wrong, you blame me for pointing out the mistake? It is against the rules to point out a drastic mistake?

Do you have any idea what constitutes a science-based discussion? You make a gigantic error, and another, and another. You do not even understand what the heat of vaporization is. But when I point out these mistakes, you say that's "silly crap." That's remarkable chutzpah, but it ain't science.

Oh, and don't bother posting any bullshit about how entrained water left the cell unboiled. People who actually read the papers (unlike you) will know that Fleischmann showed that did not happen. He demonstrated it several ways. They will see you don't know that because you did not read the paper and you wouldn't understand it if you did. It is like your claim that boils down to saying we don't know the heat of vaporization. It makes you look silly.

I read papers. And while F described various methods he typically used, that indicated entrained water would not, given his assumptions, be an issue, he did not show it was not an issue in the specific case of the results described because he assumes that his typical empirical findings. That is not enough when anomalous results are discovered. In that case specific tests are needed in the anomalous case without assumptions.

His paper was not primarily about specific results, since he was describing general methodologies. Which makes the general nature of the comments understandable. Unfortunately that makes it more difficult to determine the precise checks and tests done in the cases where he quotes specific results.

Unless you know of a write-up other than the one much quoted here?

Quote from THHuxleynew

I read papers. And while F described various methods he typically used, that indicated entrained water would not, given his assumptions, be an issue, he did not show it was not an issue in the specific case of the results described because he assumes that his typical empirical findings.

He designed the cell to prevent entrainment. He ran blanks that showed the expected amount energy per gram of evaporation. He measured the salts left in the cell, showing that none escaped entrained. (Entrained water would carry off the salts.) He published videos showing the boiling water does not reach the top of the cell.

Those are specific steps he took in the results described.

What more should he have done? What would you suggest? What would satisfy you, if this is not enough?

All of this is described in Fleischmann's papers at LENR-CANR.org.

Roseland67 wrote"you can be sure the professor would have immediately replicated it many, many times, then had it attended for additional replications"

100g of palladium=$3000.

Cost of apparatus probably $10000...a significant amount of sparrows tears in 1991

Why replicate an uncontrollable reaction many times? .. average heat power was about only 70 watts average over 14 days.

You can be sure the professor would NOT have replicated.. heat after death.

Mizuno has instead aimed to increase measurability. controllability. safety . cost. energy efficiency

At 70 years of age around 2014, within the constraints of sparrows tears, and perhaps crows feet, Mizuno achieved

"A test with this reactor lasts almost 30 days. Typical excess heat during the time is estimated as 300 W. Total energy is thus ~2.6×108 J. The amount of D2 used was 20 cm3 STP. Assuming that the reaction is D+D fusion, and assuming that all gases react, the amount of gas required to generate this much energy is approximately 12 cm3 STP." The energy output/input ratio was approximately 1.9.

Mizuno is controlling the nickel catalyst preparation to exclude oxygen/nitrogen and pack in the deuterium.

Then he is initiating the 'fusion ' with between ~50 and 100 volts. The task now is to optimise preparation, electrical input to increase the ratio to

over 2 then 4 and over 5. After that the use of hydrogen rather than deuterium may need to be examined. At $680/litre ,12 cm3 of D2 costs ~800 cents.

800/2.6×108 J is >3 cents/MJ. which is comparable to the price of natural gas.

1991-2014 might be considered slow progress by NASA , but for a hitori bochi gakusha on sparrows tears its super fast, and not without personal cost .

And currently the progress is better than anyone else has documented.

In Sapporo it is autumn. the momiji are so beautiful..not like mine in Sydney ..but money does not grow on them anywhere... unfortunately.