May 2017 be for LENR what 2016 wasn't

    Jed,
    Maybe you could help decode this paper. For example, figs 3-10 (as per the caption in Fig 3) reflect cell #4 summarized in the Table on page 9. Yet the calculated power in is ca. 72W (from Figs 3 &4) and the excess power out is 17.3 (Table 4 and Fig 10) for a percentage of 24% excess not the 250% in the Table. Also, the excess power percentage in fig 10 does not match the excess shown in Figs 8 &9. Additionally, the time of 70 days comes from where? It is like they had taken data sets from various runs and mashed them together with some representing run 3 and some run 4. The data match better run 3 but the percentage in fig 10 matches better run 4 (except for the time interval).



    BTW: What do you think the internal temperature was? Can you explain Fig 5?

    Jed Rothwell: "Please do not presume to tell me what my sources are, and do not tell me that I am in thrall of I.H. I have little to do with them. My information from Rossi comes from him, and has been confirmed by sources outside of I.H. including people who do not like I.H., and who support Rossi, such as Lewan. They quoted the same numbers Rossi gave me, only instead of seeing that these numbers show he is a fraud, they think the numbers show that his claims are real. It is beyond me how they can believe that his warehouse is a vacuum or that his pumps produce exactly the same flow when half of them are turned off (as the log book shows) or when all of them are turned off. But they do believe it."


    Jed: Why not share this data with us, so we can reach our own conclusions?

    Quote from DAK

    Maybe you could help decode this paper. For example, figs 3-10 (as per the caption in Fig 3) reflect cell #4 summarized in the Table on page 9. Yet the calculated power in is ca. 72W (from Figs 3 &4) and the excess power out is 17.3 (Table 4 and Fig 10) for a percentage of 24% excess not the 250% in the Table.


    You are right. I think the caption is wrong. I will ask one of the authors, who I am still in touch with. The data for all the figures fits cell #3, which is their best result. The duration of the whole experiment is 158 days, input power around 72 W, etc. The heat pulse lasts about 40 days. Figure 10 shows the top thermistor set with only a excess (17%). As I recall, the point is, the top thermistor does not "see" most of the heat. The bottom one sees nothing, as shown in Fig. 9. It maxes out at boiling. It works in stages. At low power, below boiling you read the lower thermistor. Above a certain power level, the lower thermistor tells you nothing more:


    Quote

    Therefore, if the bath temperature remains constant, then the temperature difference measured between the inner and outer thermistor of each set will rise to a maximum value, which is independent of the power input level. When this maximum is reached, any increases in the power in the bottom of the cell will have no further effect on the measured temperature difference.


    Kind of a kludge but it is hard to measure heat in a continuously boiling cell.


    Quote from DAK

    The data match better run 3 but the percentage in fig 10 matches better run 4 (except for the time interval).


    What time interval? The duration of the experiment and time interval of the maximum output look right for #3 to me.


    Quote from DAK

    BTW: What do you think the internal temperature was? Can you explain Fig 5?


    Just over 100 deg C. The lab was at sea level. The boiling point of LiOD is just over 100 deg C. See:


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

    Quote from BBCK777

    No, this has nothing to do with I.H. This is what I have heard from researchers such as the MFMP, including…



    Jed: Please share the data with us.


    I did already. The MFMP. Everything they do is on line. They have not reported any excess heat in any experiment, as far as I know. Ask them. The other two reported at ICCF20. The ICCF20 people have not uploaded the abstracts or anything else as far as I know. See:


    http://iccf20.net/


    I told them they should, but they ignored me. I have many disagreement with them about this and other issues. I cannot tell you a thing about any presentation without permission. Except in general terms: people with better equipment than Parkhamov or Rossi have attempted to replicate, but they have seen no excess heat.


    If it were up to me, the abstracts would have been uploaded before the conference, and the slide presentations would have been uploaded a week after the conference. I have no idea why they keep things secret. It is annoying.


    Only two people claim replications as far as I know: Jiang, and the mysterious ME-something-person here. Jaing is impressive, and getting better, but there are some serious unresolved problems the thermocouples going haywire. ME-something will not give his or her real name or affiliation. That is to say, the institution where he is working (even if it is "at home"). So I ignore this. Sorry to be a snob, but I do not keep track of amateur research, and I cannot tell whether this person is an amateur or professional.

    Quote from BBCK777

    They quoted the same numbers Rossi gave me, only instead of seeing that these numbers show he is a fraud, they think the numbers show that his claims are real. It is beyond me how they can believe that his warehouse is a vacuum or that his pumps produce exactly the same flow when half of them are turned off (as the log book shows) or when all of them are turned off. But they do believe it."


    Jed: Why not share this data with us, so we can reach our own conclusions?


    Rossi is my source of information. He & Penon are the only source of information on this test. Ask him for the data. He will not give it to you, which tells you a lot, I think. As far as I know he hasn't given out any data since a few weeks before he filed the lawsuit.


    I have told you, again and again, the data is completely described in Exhibit 5:


    https://drive.google.com/file/…MAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E/view


    You can recreate the tables from Exhibit 5. As I said, you put in a single flow rate for every day, and you arbitrarily subtract 10% for no apparent reason. You set ambient temperature to an impossible number, and outlet temperatures is 102.8 deg C with only ~1 degree variation. You set the pressure in the lab to a perfect vacuum. You set a few other utterly impossible conditions, and that gives you Rossi's answer: 1 MW of heat, every single day, without fail. As Exhibit 5 points out, it was the same even on days when Rossi himself in his blog said the reactor was half turned off, or fully turned off, and when visitors to the lab saw it was off and disassembled. I think we can all agree that is remarkable performance!


    (Exhibit 5 does show a variation in the flow rate that I was unaware of. It shows some other information I did not know about. So if you read it, you will know more than I could tell from the sample data I saw.)


    Since Rossi tells you nothing, and since he did not respond to Exhibit 5, I suggest you assume it is an accurate description of the data. I myself know that it is, because I have the data, and because Lewan and others who got it from Rossi told me it agrees with what I have. You will have take our word for it. Do you believe Lewan and I? Do you suppose that Rossi would have rebutted Exhibit 5 before the lawsuit, or after it was filed, if he had any valid answers? If so, you should take the description at face value.


    That's all there is to it. Everything is in Exhibit 5, and in the photos of the lab showing no ventilation equipment capable of removing 1 MW of heat. If that is not enough to convince you, I have nothing more, and I cannot convince you.

    • Official Post

    Jed,


    IHFB is right. I don't know about MFMP, but Bob Greenyer of MFMP has said several times over the years they were consistently getting small positive COPs (1.02-1.15) with various set-ups. Enough to keep them interested and continuing on, but not solid enough to go public with, or even brag about.


    Unfortunately, it is a bit difficult to follow their progress, as there have been too many times enthusiasm has gotten the better of them, leaving their followers bewildered when there is no follow-up. Often times, having to read between the lines as to what happened. A good example of that is the cooperation agreement arranged with Aarhus University, Debmark announced last August.


    I do keep in mind, as should we all, that they are a very talented volunteer group, with altruistic motives, and mostly on a shoe string budget.

    • Official Post
    Quote from JedRothwell

    They should refrain from announcing anything until they have checked it very carefully. Preliminary experimental results are often wrong.


    This is the problem with openscience, some preliminary results may be corrected later... I remember scientists like Jean-Paum Biberian explaining the long work to check, debunk, cross check, confirm your own experiments...


    My interpretation of F&P tragedy is that it was too much open science (science by conference as they said), and that early results of all sides, yo-yo moods, created a disillusionment in many hopeful minds (see Morrison), which were exploited by vested interested to support motivated beliefs (Hot fusion budgets, particle physics dominance)...

    Jed, do you want to discuss the claimed 100W paper in detail, starting with the basic construction and calibration of the so-called calorimeter? Maybe starting another thread would be best? I don't believe that the methodology of heat measurement is sound. I also wonder why nobody bothered to repeat the construction and testing of a small device which seemingly makes 100W excess power essentially indefinitely. The original work is dated 1996! Where are the replications? Where are the improvements? Why are not universities everywhere studying this? But do you want to discuss this with me and others in a separate string?


    My theory about work with isoperibolic so-called calorimeters is that they are so sloppy and vague in design that calibration and other errors can hide in them and the excess heat results could be errors or noise. I never understood why, knowing about better calorimeters such as the gradient layer or Seebeck effect calorimeters Storms worked with, they don't use these or at least substitute heat flux transducers (many of them) for simple spot temperature measurements. Unless I misunderstood something, all these guys use to measure heat flow is three thermistor pairs where the members of the pair are embedded in some sort of plastic and are a few mm. apart. Is that wrong? Is that not what an "isoperibolic calorimeter" is? Where did that strange name come from anyway? Can anyone defend such crude technology?


    Oh yeah, I forgot. I am a stupid flunkie who can't and won't read grand and illustrious LENR papers as Jed is fond of reminding me.


    And about MFPM and Celani wires. Celani AND MFPM resist consistently the most OBVIOUS improvement suggested by me and others in their experiments-- namely, the addition of many more wires heated by the same heat source. This could increase the signal to noise, or so-called COP factor, by a factor of 10X or more and has been asked for since the Celani wires came to light, maybe what now...? Four years ago? WHY DON'T THEY DO THIS VERY OBVIOUS THING if the wires work at all? It isn't rocket science!

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Jed, do you want to discuss the claimed 100W paper in detail, starting with the basic construction and calibration of the so-called calorimeter?


    Why "so-called"? It is a calorimeter. A darn good one, too, as the calibrations showed. I do not want to discuss it right now. I am discussing it with the authors. I think the caption should should say "experiment #3" and I am going over some other questions I have about it. I may upload a new version of the paper with some added notes by me. I already made some corrections to OCR errors.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    I don't believe that the methodology of heat measurement is sound.


    That is because you know nothing about calorimetry. As Fleischmann pointed out, this method was perfected by J.P. Joule in the 1840s and it still works as well as it did back then. Joule himself, with the instruments he made, could have measured the heat in most cold fusion experiments with high confidence.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    I also wonder why nobody bothered to repeat the construction and testing of a small device which seemingly makes 100W excess power essentially indefinitely.


    This is about as small as you can make it. The cathodes don't come any smaller.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Where are the replications? Where are the improvements? Why are not universities everywhere studying this? But do you want to discuss this with me and others in a separate string?


    You would have to ask the universities. Toyota stopped most of this research, but not all, because of greed and stupidity. It was a fight over intellectual property with other companies that were participating in the research. Nothing to do with science, or with Fleischmann and Pons. In my opinion, the people in charge were stupid. And lazy. Also, like you, they did not read the literature so instead of looking at facts they made up all kinds of baseless nonsense.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    They should refrain from announcing anything until they have checked it very carefully. Preliminary experimental results are often wrong.


    This may be a difficult concept to understand, but MFMP is a collective, not a company. We share common goals but not a common voice, and often differ on interpretation. In regard to my Glowstick experiments, I am cautious in making public statements, and have never claimed unequivocal proof of excess heat, for good reasons. While some of the results have been encouraging, the excess has never exceeded my conservative estimate of the relevant error bars. Having said that, it's also worth mentioning that within the error bars, the COP data has always trended positive compared to calibration.


    The guiding principle of MFMP is Live Open Science, which we do collectively share. Thus all our data and experimental protocols are published openly in as near real-time as possible. Observers can and usually do draw their own conclusions from our experiments, and we cannot defend against every incorrect claim made by third parties about our work. Therefore we rely on you ("the crowd") to keep each other honest and accurate in evaluating our results. This is both a strength and a weakness of our LOS philosophy, and I urge all of you to not be lazy: review and discuss the data before making any claims about it


    AlanG

    Quote

    the addition of many more wires heated by the same heat source. This could increase ... so-called COP factor, by a factor of 10X or more


    Do you assume that parallel arrangement of multiple wires could increase the COP by decreasing of radiative loses?

    @Zephir_AWT


    My thinking about multiple wires is that these wires are low mass. Therefore, many of them can be heated by the same (or almost the same) heating power required for one wire. Yes, the heater would thus be more efficient and the signal to noise ratio (COP) would be much higher because the same amount (or almost the same amount) of heater power in would yield many more times the heat out. That would make accurate measurement much higher. How hard can it be? In more than 3 years of screwing around with these wires, they never tried it. Note that National Instruments gave up on them.

    Sorry, skipped a step. If the ratio of output signal to input signal is higher, inaccuracy in measurement won't matter as much. Right? If output over input is something like 1.2 and the error band is something like 20%, confidence is low. But a ratio of say 10 for out/in is much easier to be confident in with the same error band. 10 wires instead of 1 could approximate that sort of result.


    As for the 100W experiment, I think it should be discussed in detail starting with the construction of the calorimeter and its calibration. I am curious why the proponents of this method use a very few spot temperature measurements (3 sets in this case, right?) to approximate heat flow when they could use heat flow transducers which cover a large area and have hundreds of measurement points. Or they could even perform the experiment inside a Seebeck effect "enclosure" type calorimeter with thousands of heat flow measurement points. Again, a much larger signal is better and less error prone.


    Of course, Jed is sure I know nothing about calorimetry so these should be easy questions for him to field.

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.