Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • But have you ever proposed some method of proving CCS/ATER by an experiment? I think not. Without that it is just a hypothesis, and as such merely a unicorn.


    Really Alan? Really??


    Replication of LENR experiments


    [SPLIT]Older LENR Experiments were bad, good... in general


    [Split] Reconsidering F&P with CCS....


    [Split] Reconsidering F&P with CCS....


    [Split] Reconsidering F&P with CCS....

  • @Alan


    No I didn't do it and to a high degree of certainty. I probably won't. I once outlined the reasons for this for Jed back on spf, and I've done it here too. It boils down to no funding and the massive administrative barriers towards working with experiments that can explode. That's runs the cost and time requirements through the roof for me. And I have the same funding issues you do. I work for a company and am not independently wealthy.


    But how hard is it for Storms or McKubre or ... to have done what I suggest? How hard is it for them to have realized that's all it takes (I believe), instead of spinning tales to put down my ideas? How hard is it for them to look at their old data and find a case where the CCS problem doesn't potentially explain away their observations?

  • But how hard is it for Storms or McKubre or ... to have done what I suggest?

    They don't need to. Their experiments already prove you are wrong. So do the experiments by Miles and by everyone else. For the reasons given by Marwan and me, such as: the choice of cathode material cannot cause the effects you ascribe to your theory. Your theory would produce anomalous cold as often as heat. Etc.


    You are demanding that other people prove you are wrong, when they have already done so.

  • Quote

    Your best bet is to actually try to understand my proposal as THH has done. Then the statement "You don't calibrate with an active electrode." will make perfect sense to you.


    This (calibrating with an active electrode) might seem difficult to do. I assume this translates to calibrating while electrolysis is taking place. Why not add Joule heat in varying known quantity during an electrolysis run (with a special heater for the purpose) at constant electrolysis input power (in one instance) and constant temperature in the cell (in another instance) and seeing the effect of the added heat on output? It would be at least interesting.


    All of these arguments are why I wish someone could make an LENR experiment which requires no input power or at least no heating, thus minimizing the input power... OR, of course, a very large output/input power ratio. Then considerations of comparatively small calibration shifts wouldn't matter. I thought Mizuno might have done that or claimed it but it doesn't seem as straightforward as I thought. If a cell makes enough excess heat and is properly insulated and then temperature regulated with a cooling jacket, it should be possible to have it heat itself, wouldn't it?


    @Jed: where is the development of his kilowatt and 10kW reactors if you know? The ones with the cute girl names?

  • I assume this translates to calibrating while electrolysis is taking place

    Nope , not what I mean. ("active" => showing excess heat effect)


    Why not add Joule heat in varying known quantity during an electrolysis run (with a special heater for the purpose) at constant electrolysis input power (in one instance) and constant temperature in the cell (in another instance) and seeing the effect of the added heat on output? It would be at least interesting.

    They have done this with calibration pulses while electrolyzing. Won't show a problem as long as the heater is where it normally is, in the electrolyte. You need to simulate the change in steady state that occurs (for ex. in a closed cell) when recombination moves from the recomb. catalyst to the electrode. So you'd need a heater in the gas space to simulate the recomb cat., reduce power to it, incr power to the immersed heater, presumably voila, excess heat.

  • kirkshanahan


    OK. I wonder at what level of excess heat and out/in power ratio CCS would stop to be a reasonable consideration. I realize it may be different for different experiments and different geometries but for example, in the Mizuno case, there must some level he can reach where it stops to really matter.


    And I see why you would be concerned about safety if LENR turns out to be real. Of course this raises the question why there have NOT been more unexpected very large explosions. For example in the manufacturing of Nickel metal hydride batteries or in their use perhaps at high temperatures, in fires, or other unusual conditions.


    Just out of curiosity, and if you can say, how do you use deuterated metals in closed containers... generically if you can't be specific?

  • And I see why you would be concerned about safety if LENR turns out to be real. Of course this raises the question why there have NOT been more unexpected very large explosions. For example in the manufacturing of Nickel metal hydride batteries or in their use perhaps at high temperatures, in fires, or other unusual conditions.


    Just out of curiosity, and if you can say, how do you use deuterated metals in closed containers... generically if you can't be specific?


    There have been a few such explosions over the years. One 'biggie' known to be Ni/H related (Thermacore) and a couple of others marked down as inexplicable. Not yet in the public domain is a pretty spectacular bang in a large-scale 'Les Case' replication (cause to be determined in a future court case so sub judice). And three in my lab - messy but minor affairs where all the safety measures worked as planned.


    The thing is nobody wants to say 'we were doing this fusion experiment and it worked too well/went wrong'. That way you are heading for trouble with all kinds of regulators.


    As for your comment about deuterated metals in closed containers, the answer is 'carefully'. But there is no especial magic to deuterides per se apart from the price. You extend to them all the courtesies that you do to metal hydrides, or even borohydrides.

  • OK. I wonder at what level of excess heat and out/in power ratio CCS would stop to be a reasonable consideration


    The maximum amount of recombination is given by the current (I) times the thermoneutral voltage (Eth) (which is 1.41 for H and 1.54 for D I think). The electrolysis power in is split into the power that goes into making H2 and O2 (I * Eth) and Ohmic heating of the electrolyte (Ein-Eth)*I = Eohm*I. Apparent excess heat could be up to 100% of the I*Eth term, but there is also a 'bump-up' as I call it to account for the thermal losses which can magnify the apparent excess heat. The size of the bump-up depends on the overall heat capture efficiency of the calorimeter system. But I doubt it would ever be greater than 2 (guessing!). So you can estimate the maximum 'CCS-based' apparent excess heat by taking the I*Eth term and multiplying it by 2, then dividing by the total input power and multiplying by 100 to get a %. If your measured %excess heat is greater than that, you may be on to something (assuming no other errors are present).


    This is why looking at old data could potentially negate the CCS concern. The calc is reasonably simple.


    For maximum sensitivity, you'd want as little ohmic heating as possible (Eohm~0), but that means measuring lower power levels which gets trickier of course.


    I realize it may be different for different experiments and different geometries but for example, in the Mizuno case, there must some level he can reach where it stops to really matter.


    Because there is no mechanism I can think of akin to ATER in his setup, I kind of doubt a CCS is relevant. Of course it could, but I'd personally suspect something else, such as feedback or ground loop issues. That's why it is important to get the time sequencing of experimental runs down. Ideally you want the cal runs interspersed with the active runs.


    Just out of curiosity, and if you can say, how do you use deuterated metals in closed containers... generically if you can't be specific


    I work at the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) which is one functional unit of the Savannah River Site (SRS), which is a DOE-owned, contractor operated facility for the production of nuclear weapon materials. I support the tritium separation and purification process, which uses Pd to separate and purify tritium, and other hydride-forming materials for storage of tritium (such as U, Ti, La-Ni-Al alloys). We place kgs of these metal in SS vessels to do this processing, and of course they are closed. There are lots of publications out there about our tritium processes, just do a lit search. I also do hydride material development and R&D.

  • This (calibrating with an active electrode) might seem difficult to do. I assume this translates to calibrating while electrolysis is taking place. Why not add Joule heat in varying known quantity during an electrolysis run (with a special heater for the purpose) at constant electrolysis input power (in one instance) and constant temperature in the cell (in another instance) and seeing the effect of the added heat on output? It would be at least interesting.

    This has been done in many electrolysis experiments, by Storms and others. It has been done with various calorimeter types, such as isoperibolic and especially Seebeck ones, which are highly dependent on calibration. (Skilled people can do a first-principle analysis of isoperibolic calorimetry to supplement the calibration method, but I think that would be difficult with a Seebeck calorimeter.) It is a good idea to calibrate with both a resistance heater and with electrolysis. You can calibrate with electrolysis for the first few days because there is seldom any excess heat during this time. At least, not with an unused cathode. If the cathode previously generated heat, it might start to do so again quickly.


    If there is some excess heat in the first few days, that means you will underestimate output, and you will not see any excess heat after that unless it increases. If the heat stops, you will see anomalous cold, which is obviously an error. In 1989, Lewis famously made the mistake of recalibrating with a cathode that was already producing heat, which nullified his results. He basically reset the calibration constant in the middle of the test after it began to show excess heat. In other words, he decided the constant was inconstant. See:


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


    Gene Mallove described this as "standing on the scale while you zero it out." That's good for dieters. Your weight always comes out zero!


    If you are talking about the recent Mizuno experiment, he calibrated with the heating wire wrapped around the reactor when I was there. I don't know if he did that again lately. The calibrations shown in the paper, at 80 W, 120 W and 248 W, were done with unprocessed nickel, as described on p. 8. That means bulk nickel without nanoparticles, and without Pd plating, as described in the method in Appendix A. (Pd was sputtered everywhere in the reactor previously, so I suspect that is why it worked in the past, but it is now being added deliberately.)


    The air flow calorimetry recovers almost as much heat from the three calibration levels as the input. Flow calorimetry is an absolute method that does not depend on calibrations, unlike Seebeck calorimetry -- although of course you should always calibrate anyway, with any method. The point is, since the heat balance is ~1:1, to me it sure looks like the calorimetry is working during these null tests. Maybe it is not working with the excess heat results? That is plausible. It is difficult to imagine how making the nickel into nanoparticles inside the reactor would have that effect on calorimetry performed outside the reactor. But at least that is a hypothesis we can work on. Could something else be going on, in the second set of runs? I don't see much room for a hypothesis that the air flow calorimetry does not work at all, for various imaginary reasons dreamed up by Shanahan and others. Why would the calibration give the right answer?


    The whole point of a calibration is to rule out problems, both real and imaginary.

  • Flow calorimetry is an absolute method that does not depend on calibrations


    Umm...for the record, no that is incorrect.


    although of course you should always calibrate anyway


    Just for the good of your soul, right?


    The whole point of a calibration is to rule out problems


    Ummm...for the record, no that is incorrect.


    Nothing humans do is ever perfect. An instrument or method that is not perfect will have an error, certainly random but also potentially partially systematic. That error can be corrected by calibration, and that is the purpose of calibration.


    If someone says they don't calibrate, they are just admitting they assume a particular set of calibration constants instead of determining them. This doesn't obviate the need to use the variation in those constants in a POE calculation.

  • Flow calorimetry is an absolute method that does not depend on calibrations


    Umm...for the record, no that is incorrect.

    Let me cite Morrison on that. Of all people. Proving that a stopped analog clock is right twice a day.


    I also cite McKubre.


    No, it does not depend on calibrations. It is an absolute method, meaning as soon as you know the flow rate and inlet and outlet fluid temperatures, you have your answer. The heat capacity of water is well established. You do not need a calibration curve. If you did, boiler engineers would have to spend days measuring the output from a boiler. If you examine their worksheets, you see that they take one reading of the water temperature, and make the calculation from it. They do not draw up a calibration curve at different power levels and then put data points on a curve to see how efficient the equipment is. That would be calorimetry by calibration.


    Note also that ships, power plants and boilers use flow calorimetry, and the equipment does not use a look up table or other calibrated method. Other equipment does. For example, a thermal watt meter that measures elecric power by the temperature of a resistor does.


    If someone says they don't calibrate, they are just admitting they assume a particular set of calibration constants instead of determining them.

    No scientist ever says that. No one said that here. As you see, Mizuno did calibrate.


    However, as I just pointed out boiler technicians do not calibrate. And yet they know how much heat boilers put out!

  • Flow calorimetry is indeed an absolute method IF YOU HAVE A PERFECT (IDEAL) CALORIMETER and perfect measuring instruments in an absolutely noise free environment. In real life, there are unexpected losses and sometimes even gains of heat. There are also instrument errors, ground loops, bad insulation, stray EMF's, etc. etc. etc. which is why you MUST calibrate. To paraphrase what they say about Chicago voting, calibrate early and calibrate often.


    My constant bitching against low levels of heat and comparatively low power-out/power-in ratios is obviously because if the results are large enough, you can relax a bit more about operating conditions and calibration. But you ALWAYS must calibrate and run blanks. Even Rossi knows that. Because he was fooling people, he had to claim that calibration and blanks were not necessary. I love his reason (to me in his blog IIRC): "I already know how the results will be".


    PS: boiler technicians "know" how much heat boilers put out because SOMEONE ELSE (usually the manufacturer or a lab) calibrated their measuring instruments. They also make very broad assumptions because they don't need much accuracy. If LENR rsults were like boiler outputs, you might not need very frequent or completely accurate calibration either.


    Quote

    No scientist ever says that.

    A strange statement. It means you know EVERYTHING EVER said by EVERY SCIENTIST who ever lived.

  • Quote

    One 'biggie' known to be Ni/H related (Thermacore) and a couple of others marked down as inexplicable.

    Problem is that it is hard to pin down the actual force or yield of these. Until you can say go out in the desert and make them at will and measure them, it's hard to be sure they were not simply hydrogen-oxygen or hydrogen-oxidizer of some sort explosions which I am sure you know, pack plenty of punch. One, within the past couple of years, leveled a building and killed someone in a California in a plant doing some silly thing with Brown Gas or electrolysis to improve fuel mileage. Both of course are bogus. But the explosion, fire, death and injuries were very real.


    Quote

    Not yet in the public domain is a pretty spectacular bang in a large-scale 'Les Case' replication (cause to be determined in a future court case so sub judice).


    I am not sure what that strange hodge podge of French and Latin means. Replication? Someone did it deliberately? That would be interesting.

  • Quote

    maryyugo: Not yet in the public domain is a pretty spectacular bang in a large-scale 'Les Case' replication (cause to be determined in a future court case so sub judice).


    Alan Smith: Remedial classes are just down the road.


    Can't resist pomposity, can you? Anything to avoid demonstrating that you have little or no actual credible information.

  • The whole point of a calibration is to rule out problems, both real and imaginary.


    That is the opposite of the way I'd put it.


    Calibration is a way to improve the accuracy of a measurement. If you see known errors as problems then it can, best case, eliminate some of them.


    But, in doing so, it actually introduces more problems. The (potentially more accurate) result after calibration is only so if all of the calibration assumptions (most commonly, that system characteristics don't change) are true. The extra accuracy is therefore bought at the cost of some inherent extra and potentially breakable assumptions. You can see that is introducing problems in demonstrating integrity of results.

  • Flow calorimetry is indeed an absolute method IF YOU HAVE A PERFECT (IDEAL) CALORIMETER and perfect measuring instruments in an absolutely noise free environment. In real life, there are unexpected losses and sometimes even gains of heat. There are also instrument errors, ground loops, bad insulation, stray EMF's, etc. etc. etc. which is why you MUST calibrate. To paraphrase what they say about Chicago voting, calibrate early and calibrate often.


    My constant bitching against low levels of heat and comparatively low power-out/power-in ratios is obviously because if the results are large enough, you can relax a bit more about operating conditions and calibration. But you ALWAYS must calibrate and run blanks. Even Rossi knows that. Because he was fooling people, he had to claim that calibration and blanks were not necessary. I love his reason (to me in his blog IIRC): "I already know how the results will be".


    Yes. Particularly the calibrate often bit.

  • http://bit.ly/2vgp2Do is a link to the Florida Division of Corporations. As you will see, J. M. Products is now dissolved, gone, done for, extinct, dodo, buhbye. One can only hope that Henry W. Johnson Esq. will be disciplined by the Florida bar or brought up for fraud by the appropriate prosecuting agency for his part in the fraud Rossi perpetrated on IH with this pretend customer. What a clumsy scam! Like what did Rossi and Johnson *think* was going to happen when it was found out?