Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • 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?