Keep it coming SSC (and Ele).
Here is a description of the event, written by me:
OK, so I looked this over. Nothing in it to contradict anything important in my description. Lots of details that were posted to spf are not included, like the posts describing the broken windows and the use of a lab hood in an abandoned building...
But the key point is that Jed writes: "A bucket left by itself for 10 days in a university laboratory will not lose any measurable level of water to evaporation. "
That is nothing but an assumption based on wishful thinking. Anything other that that occurring invalidates the use of water loss as a useful measure. Of course, that was the point of my first post on this topic on spf. My examination of evaporation rate equations put out by DOE for swimming pools led me to believe that it might be possible if the ventilation and humidity characteristics were correct. As an anecdotal story, we don't have those numbers, so I choose to find the event unconvincing. It's an anecdote, so you can choose to believe what you like about it.
And I also assume a good chance of thermocouple problems as well, even though we were assured that it had been checked. Jed's writeup simply confirms that Mizuno confirmed a reading with another meter, but not that he used an independent measure. If the TC was malfunctioning, the second meter would still produce an erroneous reading, since a malfunctioning TC wouldn't care what meter was used to read it. Again we have insufficient information to truly make a decision.
Referring to posts 1170 and 1172 of this thread:
The discussion here is about a statement made by Jed: “In cold fusion, Arata once demonstrated a thermoelectric chip running a small motor” where he later referenced a paper in response to my request for details. The reference was: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonar.pdf
This paper has no information in it that I can see about a thermoelectric chip running a motor. Instead it is about Arata’s Pd/ZrO2 studies, later ‘replicated’ by Kitamura, et al and published in Physics Letters A (quoted in the paper as ref. 20). As I have said before, I have issues with these experiments and tried to publish a comment on Kitamura, et al’s paper. The Phys Lett A editors refused to publish my comment. The manuscript of that comment is attached as an Appendix to my whitepaper, found here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3d7yWtb1doPc3otVGFUNDZKUDQ
So try again Jed, where is the information on Arata’a thermoelectric chip study?
kirkshanahan : instead of referencing post numbers, I suggest inserting hyperlinks to those posts. Since this side discussion is off topic, there is a good chance it will be moved at some point, at which time the the referenced posts will no longer be numbers 1170 and 1172.
kirkshanahan: instead of referencing post numbers, I suggest inserting hyperlinks to those posts. Since this side discussion is off topic, there is a good chance it will be moved at some point, at which time the the referenced posts will no longer be numbers 1170 and 1172.
We are talking about two different tests and two different reports. The one that I was talking about, that was issued and then revised after comments by me and others, was in 2013. It is here:
This is a more complete description of a Rossi test than anything published earlier. Taken on its own, I think it has merit.
The 2013 report has been issued and revised by the same persons who issued and revised the 2011 report ( http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf ), which reported a huge excess heat calculated on the basis of completely invented data. Therefore, the only merit that the 2013 report could have, with respect to the 2011 one, is to be more effective in misleading the public.Quote
I now think that Rossi is a complete fraud and a criminal based on the Penon report, and the Murray and Smith reports. […] It is conceivable that Rossi actually had something in 2013, described in the above report.
This is your present acrobatic narrative. I wonder who can believe it.Quote
Who knows what happened?
I guess you were in the best position for knowing it.
Have you ever read any scientific article in which the author indicated the number of hours he had been in the lab? The authors considered it useful to point out that they had control of the test and that Rossi only intervened on some occasions (though in their presence) when it was obviously impossible for them to act alone as they did not know the object they were testing.
The first HT (Hotcat) test the Levi team did was in Ferrara (TPR1). It created a storm of controversy, because of Rossi's participation. Levi was well aware of this, and understood that when he led the Lugano (TPR2) team, accounting fully for Rossi's role would determine the reports acceptance by the science community. If Rossi was lightly involved, and seldom present, then the report would be more respected, than if Rossi was there all, or most of the time, as the documents show was the case.
Kind of an unusual situation, but then again, with anything Rossi...it usually is. His being there as he was, along with his side-kick Fabiani -whom Levi neglected to note being there at all, alone invalidates the report in any meaningfully scientific way. Plus, it was published on the UOBs internal site. Even Arvix would not accept it.
The Swedes didn't conduct an experiment at their University, did a test at a private premises and were partly funded by a company. In fact, in the report's acknowledgments, you can read this:
"This paper was partially sponsored by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Elforsk AB."
It is normal for them to have privacy obligations and not to accept interviews for fear of revealing too much. There's nothing wrong with this, it's a normal practice when dealing with companies that pay you.
The first paper was also not at their university and it was also supported by Elforsk AB, yet they answered questions and revised the paper in response to suggestions, following the norms of academic science. So, your excuse for their misbehavior after the second test does not fly.
It is conceivable that Rossi actually had something in 2013, described in the above report.
This is your present acrobatic narrative. I wonder who can believe it.
Not me. I don't believe it. I am just saying it is conceivable.
I guess you were in the best position for knowing it.
Okay. Since I have no idea what to make of it, I guess that means no one else knows either.
So try again Jed, where is the information on Arata’a thermoelectric chip study?
It was done during the study Ed & I described. I did not include that detail. It was reported in the Japanese mass media. I don't recall whether Arata included that detail in any of his reports. It isn't important.
SSC "It is normal for them to have privacy obligations and not to accept interviews for fear of revealing
too muchtheir OBVIOUS, GLARING ERRORS!. "
TIFFY (there, I fixed it for you)Quote
Perhaps you do know about Papp, but neither you nor Feynmann has any idea what the electric power going to the machine was for, or whether it was motive power or for the control electronics. If it was for the control electronics then Feynmann jumped to a false conclusion, made a terrible mistake, and killed someone.
Sure and perhaps, the power line was used to feed invisible unicorns. When a highly unlikely, purported source of novel energy is connected to a power line, and is promoted by an insane con man, it should be considered to be powered by that line until irrefutably (to use your favorite word) proven otherwise. Don'tchathink? If it was control electronics, Papp would have said something to Feynman like, "Hey, you can't remove that BECAUSE I USE IT FOR CONTROL... but I will allow you to make any measurement you like on the power input and output of my engine." Papp din't offer that, did he? Instead he just got very nervous probably because he could only use a small storage battery inside the engine. And the most credible theory of what happened is that Papp had hidden a small explosive charge inside the machine to create a diversion when needed but that he underestimated the power of the charge. Papp, IIRC (and I am not sure of this) was familiar with the use of explosives. Unfortunately, I forget where I read that.
Of course we will never know what really happened and I blame that on the lawyers for CalTech who decided to cut their losses and pay a token settlement. This is what Feynman had to say:Quote
My idea was that had Mr. Papp sent his engine to the Stanford Research Institute as announced, the game would be up in a few days. Therefore an explosion just big enough to destroy the engine would keep the game going a little longer; it would show the tremendous power of the engine, and, most importantly, it would provide a reason for investors to put more money into the project, now the engine had to be rebuilt. We all agreed that the explosion was much larger than Mr. Papf probably intended.
After such an explosion with the resulting fatality and injuries, there was, of course, a lawsuit. Mr. Papp sued me for ruining his engine, charging that my stalling around with the cord caused him to lose control of it. Caltech has a legal department to protect its errant professors, so they talked to me. I told them I thought he didn't have much of a case: he would have to prove how the engine worked, and he'd have to demonstrate that in fact, taking the cord off caused the explosion.
The case was settled out of court, and Mr. Papp was paid something. I guess there's a certain amount of wisdom in not going to court, even when you're right, but I cost Caltech a certain amount of money by going to that demonstration.
I still think I correctly diagnosed what was happening with a reasonable probability. And, of course, nothing has been heard of Mr. Papp's new engine since.
I would add that despite the Rohner brothers' efforts, and they claimed they built engines *for* Papp, no noble gas engine has been properly demonstrated or tested in public since. If this really were an engine that runs without fuel, makes no heat or exhaust and provides ample power for a car, you don't think SOMEONE (think Musk, GM, Ford, Toyota, China) would have picked up the option by now? I mean, how improbable does something have to be before you (and McKubre) reject it? THIS is why nobody in the established scientific community believes you guys. You are obviously thinking in a very gullible way about Papp, therefore, one can surmise you do that with other things, like LENR for example.
"It is normal for them to have privacy obligations and not to accept interviews for fear of revealing too much their OBVIOUS, GLARING ERRORS!. "
TIFFY (there, I fixed it for you)
The errors were revealed in the paper. So I don't see the point of your joke. They failed to correct the errors or retract the paper.
Nope... And I note you've now sanitised your claims enough to ensure you won't have to delete them later.
zeus It's not "sanitised," it's shortened. I stand by everything I posted before about Papp and have no intention of deleting any of it now or later.
Jed: It is conceivable that Rossi actually had something in 2013, described in the above report. I cannot imagine why he would turn his back on a real machine and try to put over a crude fraud such as Penon. That makes no sense. But people do strange things. Who knows what happened? I can't guess and thinking about it gives me a headache. I'll never know and I don't much care. It is a tragic fiasco and a crime and I wish they would throw Rossi in prison for it, but I don't know if that is likely or not.
In what universe is it conceivable that Rossi had a real machine that did what he said and "showed " early on and that he turned his back on it? For one thing, were he that insane, his friends and colleagues would not have allowed it -- not without comment anyway. Lots of comment. See, this is what bothers me about your method of thinking and what makes me doubt all that you recount about personal experiences with cold fusion and what people told you. I don't doubt your veracity at all. But you are so easily confused and bothered by obviously fraudulent claims that it takes something extremely flagrant to get you on board like the recent Rossi data meltdown. It need not give you a headache. It's like with Papp. If a known criminal; and fraudster like Rossi, with a history like Petroldragon and the thermoelectric fraud, tells you he has a miraculous LENR device, he had better present "irrefutable" -- REALLY super-irrefutable -- evidence. Otherwise, he is just doing another con job until conclusively proven otherwise.
Ask yourself. When Rossi, early on, was confronted with his obvious measurement errors, by you, me and many others, what did he do? He ignored the critiques and instead of cleaning up the ORIGINAL very promising experiment, which would have been VERY EASY and would NOT in any way have compromised IP, what did he do? He constructed whole new experimental devices with whole new methods (OBVIOUS methods) of cheating. These took the ecat from a small low temperature device, easy to check with mass flow calorimetry (like Levi did incompetently) -- that took it to a nearly impossible to test very high temperature tube with no forced cooling -- a dismal design. And it took the simple single ecat to a gargantuan mess of ridiculous tubing and heaters Rossi called a power plant. None of that was needed. No genuine scientist or technologist/inventor would have done that. Only scammers do that.
I am reminded of an early scam I followed -- Carl Tilley. Tilley bamboozled a bunch of small town investors out of more than a million hard earned dollars with a flashy electric DeLorean auto which he claimed was self sustaining without charging. Never mind the huge 12 volt batteries -- those never needed a recharge. And a demo at a famous speedway with a famous driver ended with "burned bearings" (but replacements which were available and offered were never used). The obvious question was why Tilley needed a car for this. A much better demo would have been a resistive load on a work bench and the batteries unconnected to charging in plain view and video taped for days or weeks with observers on site. It's classic. Steorn kept building ever fancier machines too. It's what con artists do. They never fix the measurement errors but they dazzle with new sh*t. BTW, that is probably what BLP/Mills is doing too. And I suspect Brillouin as well.
Tilley: https://pesn.com/archive/2010/…against_Tilley/index.html Tilley, BTW never paid a dime. Instead he ran and it was probably too much trouble to hunt him down. He had no money at that point any way. Something like what I predict may happen to Rossi too.
The errors were revealed in the paper. So I don't see the point of your joke.
The point was that the Swedish blind mice were either too cowardly or too incompetent to discuss it or defend it publicly as they should have. Or to repudiate it if that is what they now think. Reputable scientists do not publish work of earthshaking potential and then refuse to answer legitimate and polite questions about it from qualified people.
From time to time, I see you mentioning an early Levi report from your site, which you say was somewhat compelling. There is what is probably an earlier one by no less than the infamous Penon. It is this one from August 2012:
What was striking about this one was that, far as i know, it was the first time that Rossi claimed a "third party independent verification" (or as Rossi wrote "indipendent") of the hot cat performance. But, as we noted at the time, this was done with Rossi's equipment and methods and without examination of the experiment for errors or frauds. Note the similarity of this "work" with the Lugano and other hot cat experiments.
Note that the cast of characters is "the usual suspects". That alone should have given Darden reason to pause before appointing Penon, who obviously had his nose up ... uh.... was working for Rossi's interests the whole time.
MY - there is a 3rd scenario that was going to come to light during the trial. Some of those emails between mission control and the remote research station are pretty damning.
In what universe is it conceivable that Rossi had a real machine that did what he said and "showed " early on and that he turned his back on it?
I do not think he had a real machine. I said only that it is "conceivable." Stranger things have happened. History is full of examples of people acting even more self-destructive or weird than this.
For one thing, were he that insane, his friends and colleagues would not have allowed it -- not without comment anyway.
Friends and colleagues seldom have the power to disallow insane behavior. Even family cannot stop it. As I mentioned earlier, my late aunt was a pioneer in treating mental illness and reintroducing mentally ill people back to a productive, engaged life in society. She and my mother wrote a book about that, which I have read carefully:
So, while I am no expert, and I am light-years away from being a doctor, I know a thing or two about how difficult it is for friends, family and others to deal with mental illness or deflect the harm it sometimes causes.
By the way, since I am no doctor I cannot judge whether Rossi is crazy.
Ask yourself. When Rossi, early on, was confronted with his obvious measurement errors, by you, me and many others, what did he do? He ignored the critiques and instead of cleaning up the ORIGINAL very promising experiment, which would have been VERY EASY and would NOT in any way have compromised IP, what did he do? He constructed whole new experimental devices with whole new methods (OBVIOUS methods) of cheating.
At the time I concluded he was a hopeless case, and I stopped paying attention to him. I began to pay attention again when I.H. began dealing with him. I thought I.H. seemed credible and smart. They knew far more about Rossi than I did. I thought the 2013 Levi report had merit. So I decided that perhaps Rossi may have something after all. Looking back, I now see that I.H. made mistakes, and they were swindled.
I.H. never consulted with me before the tests began. I had no idea they gave Rossi $11 million. All I knew about the situation was what they made public in press releases and interviews. Then, when one-year test was partly completed, they told me they were unhappy. They showed me some data. It looked bad. That data later appeared in the Penon report, where you can see it and judge for yourself. I was hoping Rossi would fix the problems.
The rest of the story you can see in the reports from Penon, Murray and Smith. It makes me sick to think of it. It is dreadful.
The point was that the Swedish blind mice were either too cowardly or too incompetent to discuss it or defend it publicly as they should have.
And yet they did discuss and correct the previous paper. I don't know why they clammed up after Lugano. Your explanation that they were cowardly or incompetent does not fit the facts, because they were not cowardly or incompetent a year earlier.
I can't explain it. Neither can you.