Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • RIP David Jones who died a few days ago and had fun showing how gullible scientists can be.


    https://www.csmonitor.com/1984/0117/011707.html


    Thx ZOE, that was funny. Could have sworn he was talking specifically about Rossi and others:


    "But their main feature is an abundance of false clues. Jones explains that, as with any conjuring trick, ''the secret is not to conceal, but to confuse.'' So he complicates his machines with what he describes as ''a number of cunning distractions, each designed to lead the scientific mind along one or other of several false trails.''


    "Jones says his main conclusion from the attempts of scientists and engineers to understand his machine is that these professionals ''are remarkably gullible, and easily taken in by conjuring tricks.''

    Jones observes that ''such honest individuals clearly found it hard to conceive of a machine of which large sections serve no useful purpose, and struggled to dream up mechanisms that incorporated all my decorations.''"

  • Do you seriously believe the heat of vaporization of water is not 2260 J/g? Is that really your argument?


    I hope you understand that is the calibration constant in this experiment.


    Have you read the paper?

    My post had nothing to do with the heat of vaporization of water, it was about buckyballs and measurement error and kind of snarky like yours.


  • Jed - there were gaps in the paper which mean that I don't trust it, but no errors that I could find. The issue is I remember it being said (sorry no link) that for that experiment done on Rossi premisses only Rossi and Levi were present. That, for me, means that it cannot be trusted. Although no errors, there are a number of easy mistakes that could be made in the measurements that would account for the readings. There is not sufficient info in the write-up to be sure these mistakes were not made, and as I've said the people conducting the experiment have a track record of such mistakes.

  • Jed - there were gaps in the paper which mean that I don't trust it, but no errors that I could find.

    That is how I feel about it.

    The issue is I remember it being said (sorry no link) that for that experiment done on Rossi premisses only Rossi and Levi were present.

    That is not a technical objection. That is not something we can confirm or refute with reference to the instruments, procedures or data. It is a bad feeling on your part. A person should never ignore a bad feeling. Pay close attention to your intuition and your fears to avoid disaster! But a bad feeling is not a technical problem.

  • The guvmint DOES have the resources to go after every $10M lawbreaker or white-collar criminal who submits evidence of his own fraud into a court docket. I would be surprised if there were more than 3 of them in Florida.

    There are probably more than 3 in Florida. Florida is the national leader in big money fraud such as tax fraud, Medicare fraud, defrauding individuals and so on. See:


    http://nypost.com/2015/07/29/s…fraud-capital-of-america/


    Quote:


    "Since 2007, nine regional “strike forces” of the Justice, Treasury and Health and Human Services departments have charged about 2,300 people who had falsely billed Medicare for $7 billion. . . .

    The South Florida unit’s share of that? More than 1,500 defendants through last September."


    That's 1500 people taking an average of $3.0 million each. Probably many of them took more than $10 million, while others took smaller amounts. That's Medicare fraud alone. There are many other kinds.

  • My post had nothing to do with the heat of vaporization of water, it was about buckyballs and measurement error and kind of snarky like yours.

    Sorry, I got you mixed up with the first person, who wrote:


    "Were any of these effects replicated by reputable 3rd parties? Otherwise, they may be calorimetric calibration error."


    The calorimetric calibration (calibration constant) in this case is the heat of vaporization of water. That should be apparent to anyone who reads the paper. I doubt this person read it.


    In that same discussion, I am sure Mary Yugo did not read that paper because she asked "what is a boil off?" and what does the video have to do with it. A still photo from the video is right in the paper! The technique is explained in detail in this paper and another by Stan Pons. The other day Yugo was asking and asking about a detail in the Celani slides that people pointed out to her again and again. I cannot understand why she and other skeptics repeatedly demand we give them information and then refuse to look at it.

  • Quote
    This has led to a particularly simple method of deriving the rate of excess enthalpy production based on measuring
    the times required to boil the cells to dryness, this process being followed by using time-lapse video
    recordings.


    I managed to lose a recent post -- not sure how so I try again. I did read that, but I have no idea what it means or why one would need to measure enthalpy in this weird way. Maybe I'd get it if I got through the walls of differential equations but my math ability is not up to it. I assume these are used in part to determine the boiling regime at the electrode surfaces but I have no idea what they are for beyond that or why that even matters. I'd have to borrow a math-able friend for a while and I am not sure it is worth the trouble. No, make that: I am pretty certain it is NOT worth the trouble.


    So once again, Jed, please point out where the 100W for several days without input power is. Thanks. Maybe someone else can find those elusive data inside that paper. TTH? Shanahan?


    Tell me honestly, Jed. Do you fully understand this paper, the heat transfer issues, how enthalpy is computed and why? Where the equations came from and how the solutions bear on the problem? Is this what you are looking at or referring to?


    If so, note that the time interval is 10 minutes (600s) and not days.

  • Gee,Alan, I know I can not be as smart as you are. So let's go through the differential equations in the paper and explain what they are, how they are derived and how they are solved, step by step. You go first. And maybe you can extract a credible 100W for days out of the data reduction. I can't. And that's not faux.

  • I managed to lose a recent post -- not sure how so I try again. I did read that, but I have no idea what it means or why one would need to measure enthalpy in this weird way.

    It is not weird. This method has been used since the 1740s. It is one of the most common and most reliable ways to measure enthalpy. I am surprised you do not know this, since you say you are familiar with calorimetry.

    Maybe I'd get it if I got through the walls of differential equations but my math ability is not up to it.

    You do not need to understand the equations.

    So once again, Jed, please point out where the 100W for several days without input power is. Thanks.

    The output power in these tests can be measured with great confidence based on the time it takes to boil off a known amount of water. The temperature in the cell is measured at all times, with an array of thermocouples in Fleischmann's cell. The temperature in the cell immediately after the boil off corresponds to the power level of the boil off. In other words, the power does not immediately fall after the water leaves the cell. This can be demonstrated with rigor, as described in this and other papers. The temperature remains high, sometimes for hours, sometimes for days, which shows that the heat continues at whatever level it was during the boil-off, which ranges from ~20 to ~100 W with cathodes of this size. In some cases the temperature increases before finally decaying. Fleischmann called this "heat after death." This was also observed by Mizuno and by others with closed cells.


    Note also there is always a massive energy release in the days leading up to the boil-off, sometimes amounting to megajoules. This is in a cell with no chemical fuel, so chemical energy and energy storage are ruled out even before the boil-off begins.


    When there is no energy release before the boil-off, you can trigger a boil-off by raising the input electrolysis power, but the energy balance is always slightly negative, and the temperature always falls according to Newton's law of cooling the moment the electrolyte connection between the anode and cathode is cut and input power stops. In other words, in a blank run.

  • Ostensibly, IH would be the only person harmed by any Rossi fraud, they would be the party to file suit if they so wished; but, seeinzhow, aside from more attorney's fees and bad publicity, they lost their money due to negligently poor due-diligence, on an astronomical "bet" in the first place, they'd probably have a hard time clawing back a lot or a jury having a whole lot of sympathy--the shareholders should be the ones ticked off, if anyone. Florida or the government has no interest, and no one else is harmed, unless Rossi is out publicly soliciting for new suck....err, investors. And yes, Florida is the fraud capital of the US, with all healthcare and insurance scams, many (barely) legal, and others illegal.

  • Good data, Jed. It overlooks the qualifier "every $10M lawbreaker or white-collar criminal who submits evidence of his own fraud into a court docket. " But assuming there's >500 $10M fraudsters in Florida, there still could be 3 that have submitted evidence of their own fraud into court dockets. But I doubt it, and there would be little doubt that such fraudsters would be high priority targets for law enforcement.

  • Ostensibly, IH would be the only person harmed by any Rossi fraud, they would be the party to file suit if they so wished;

    I was talking about criminal fraud. The victim does not file suit in a criminal case. The DA brings charges.


    I.H. filed a counter-suit in the civil suit. That counter-suit was dismissed with prejudice along with Rossi's suit. Neither side can file suit about any aspect of this.

  • But assuming there's >500 $10M fraudsters in Florida, there still could be 3 that have submitted evidence of their own fraud into court dockets.

    From what I read in the business section, people who commit fraud often leave blatant evidence everywhere. They sign documents, notes and loans and then abscond with the money. It is easy to prove the case against them. I do not think that a court docket is more damning than, say, bank loan paperwork or the deed to a house you sold someone that you did not own.

    But I doubt it, and there would be little doubt that such fraudsters would be high priority targets for law enforcement.

    I do not think so. I think the highest priority for law enforcement is people who steal money from the government. Such as the 2,300 people who stole $7 billion from Medicare.


    Anyway, I have no idea whether Rossi is a high priority target or a low priority target. I doubt you know that either. I hope Rossi does not know either, and I hope he is losing sleep over it. I hope he does not flee to Sweden, where he says he has lined up his next set of marks.

  • JedRothwell

    Quote

    So once again, Jed, please point out where the 100W for several days without input power is.

    The claim I see in the paper you provided is 100 more or less Watts for ten minutes. Where is the instance of 100W for days please? I would have thought such a claim, if credible, would be pretty motivating for an entrepreneur, no?