Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • Quote

    maryyugo wrote: And no, a bucket of water won't evaporate overnight. Where did Shanahan say that exactly?

    Jed Rothwell wrote: Right here, and many, many times in the past:


    Without even going to the merits of the case, this illustrates the sort of misquote Jed constantly perpetrates. I have no idea why. Shanahan said it could have evaporated in something like 10 days. If you want to discuss this, then do. But nobody said overnight and your insisting on it won't make it true. As I said, typical Jed Rothwell misquote. Finally, to the merits of the case, the bucket was not under observation so nobody knows what ACTUALLY happened to it during the time period. And this is all ridiculously irrelevant because to prove the point, the experiment could have and SHOULD have been repeated.

  • Quote

    BTW, speaking of death-traps, a recent comment from somebody much closer to the action than most of us, and a post-Lugano addition to the Rossi crew. 'The only reason Andrea is still alive is the nobody rakes him seriously'. Ponder that.


    There is nothing to ponder. The suggestion that anyone would want to harm Rossi to prevent his invention from resulting in products is beyond silly. And suppose it were true in some alternative universe, Rossi could simply write up the secrets, put them in a safe deposit box somewhere and give keys to a half dozen or so trusted people in secret. So the only part of the statement which makes sense is that nobody takes him seriously. After six years, does anyone still wonder why? Or are we drowning in cheap isotopes, robotic factories and mass produced ecats yet? And I didn't notice? And all the other dumb stuff Rossi claimed he had already made.


    And Alan, if you know Levi so well, maybe you can ask him to find out what Rossi's busy "certificators" have been doing all these years and how they are progressing.

  • Shanahan said it could have evaporated in something like 10 days.


    So I've been piddling around with the equation bocijn found, using 10% relative humidity and 1 m/s air movement over the bucket for the first datum that JedR supplied in his into he referenced (10L evap'd in 1 day, but starting at 100C). The 100C starting point means we have to assume some sort of cooling curve, if we assume no CF heat. I assumed an average temp of 60C. I got the time down to ~1.75 days, still longer than 1 but definitely in the ballpark. At this point I'd need to try to calculate the heat available from oxidizing the stored hydrogen in the cell to see if that would hold the T up longer than just a slow cool. But to get serious, I need the actual room temp, relative humidity, airflow, bucket dimensions, cooling profile, etc. All of which aren't available. As you said though, if Mizuno *really* thought he had something, he should have repeated it.

  • Maybe Dewey can shed light on why in hell Darden allowed Penon to be "ERV" instead of using some well known professor in a reputable university, the head of a major test lab, some sort of nuclear energy expert or just about ANYONE else.


    Because nobody in the 'respectable science' world would touch that job with a bargepole. There are considerable reputational risks no matter what you come up with.

  • Whatever any of the Lugano team say publicly will be diced, filleted, and thrown on the garbage heap no matter how carefully considered and what evidence is presented.

    I disagree. McKubre, I and others were careful in our evaluations. We did not dismiss them. I have said repeatedly that the second set of experiments were not bad, and no major error has been found in them as far as I know. However, we raised many questions about Lugano. Legitimate, important, scientific questions, such as "what color was the reactor incandescence?" They never answered these questions. They darn well should have. An academic scientist has an obligation to answer such questions from people like McKubre, and even from me.


    If the reactor incandescent color was the one shown in the photograph, then there was no excess heat, and their estimate of the temperature was wrong by a huge margin. Perhaps that is not the case. Perhaps that photo was taken before peak power was achieved, or the digital camera did not record the correct color. However, if the temperature was as claimed, reactor would have been a blinding white light, which they would have observed. They need to set the record straight on that. Or they need to retract the paper.


    Obviously, that is not the only technical issue that needs to be addressed.

  • Because nobody in the 'respectable science' world would touch that job with a bargepole.

    That is not true. I.H. found two experts who did an excellent job analyzing the test: Murray and Smith. They wrote detailed analyses which you can read in the trial docket. There are thousands of other highly qualified experts who would have done an excellent job at a reasonable cost.


    Murray and Smith are more engineers than scientists, but they are way more scientific than Rossi. In any case, they did a better job than most professional academic scientists would have done.

  • Quote

    Because nobody in the 'respectable science' world would touch that job with a bargepole. There are considerable reputational risks no matter what you come up with.


    What Jed said. Plus major test labs could have provided people under contract and there would be absolutely no reputational issue. Nobody gives a slug what they test or don't.


    Quote

    Rossi very deceptively and underhandedly backdoor'd Penon in TWICE. Misrepresentation across the board until he got where he could claim his man on the scene. Sad but entertaining watching the same script run yet again.


    Maybe so but Darden must bear much of the blame for not acting against it. It's hard to understand why he would allow it. But then, it is hard to understand why he would go along with a completely stupid and unnecessary one year test of a collection of silly subunits which would be much more easily and better tested individually. He had staggeringly bad advice or he didn't listen to his advisers. Or does he make decisions like that on his own?

  • But to get serious, I need the actual room temp, relative humidity, airflow, bucket dimensions, cooling profile, etc. All of which aren't available.

    You do not need any of that. That is complete bullshit. Any sane person knows that a bucket of water does not evaporate overnight unless there is a source of heat in it. If you don't believe that, put a bucket of water into a room and see what happens.


    If you want to evaluate approximately how much energy the cell produced, use the heat of vaporization. However this will be a lower bound estimate, because Mizuno did not know what time at night the bucket was empty. It might have sat for hours after the water was evaporated to a level below the cell. If the water had been replenished in the middle of the night, much more water might have been evaporated.


    As for for the bucket dimensions and cooling profile, it is an ordinary round plastic bucket. They are the same the world over. You can easily get a similar bucket and do your own cooling profile. You can also look up the average temperature in Sapporo CORRECTION in March. As I said, Japanese National University laboratories in those days had no central heating and the rooms were not heated except with gas heaters in rooms when people were present. So the rooms got cold. Students and profs. usually wore sweaters and sometimes overcoats inside, in labs and lecture halls. So you can estimate the temperature was around 10°C, and there would be no heaters or fans running overnight.


    (Actually there were two buckets, as described in the text.)


    (I know about conditions in Japanese National Universities because I attended one, and I have spent a lot of time in other ones, including the lab where this event took place. That building was torn down years ago. The replacement may have central heating.)


    *** I said this was January. It was another national holiday in March. Still cold. ***


    As you said though, if Mizuno *really* thought he had something, he should have repeated it.

    Heat after death tests were repeated hundreds of times, 16 at at time, by Fleischmann and Pons. They were far better instrumented and documented than this. You refuse to look at them or acknowledge them, but that does not make them go away.


    The cathodes were much smaller so the heat after death did not last as long, but the power levels were about the same.

  • But then, it is hard to understand why he would go along with a completely stupid and unnecessary one year test of a collection of silly subunits which would be much more easily and better tested individually.

    He and the others at I.H. were not happy with this test. They did not want it.


    Dewey may wish to say more about that. It is not for me to say more.


    I think you can learn about that in the trial depositions. As I recall, the depositions say that by the time the 1-year test was launched, other tests had failed, and I.H. had little hope of success. I did not read the depositions carefully, but Abd did, and I think he told me that.


    (Abd recently uploaded the opening statements from the trial in his blog. I just skimmed over them. I did not read them carefully. But what I did read filled me with a sense of horror, and I felt very glad the suit was settled. I can well imagine that a jury might have been bamboozled by Rossi's lawyer.)

  • Quote

    The cathodes were much smaller so the heat after death did not last as long, but the power levels were about the same.


    The reason you often cite this "test" is to impress about the energy, not the power. So it should have been redone with the same size cathodes and everything else the same except the instrumentation should have been suitable and the results should have been recorded. And by the way, it would not be too late to do this now.


  • The cathodes were much smaller so the heat after death did not last as long, but the power levels were about the same.

    Do you have a problem with that? Have you seen data that contradicts it?


    The power output from Mizuno's cell was difficult to determine because it was over the calibration, and the cell was disconnected from the pen recorder during most of the event. The Tc was measured periodically with a voltmeter. Power was approximately 100 W, gradually decreasing during the event. F&P's cells produced varying levels ranging from 50 to 150 W, for a duration ranging from a few hours to a day or so.


    The power level of heat after death is clearly not a function of the mass of Pd, but the duration of the reaction probably is. It is probably a function of the total amount of gas released from the bulk to near-surface levels, and the time it takes the gas to evolve. Fleischmann thought it was a bulk effect, but I think the evidence from heat after death and from other experiments points to a surface effect. Not the whole surface either. Only parts of it are activated.

  • @ Alan Smith,

    my long and documented comment has been substituted by this words of yours.


    The content of this post has been removed, since it contains nothing but thinly veiled attacks on Levi and UniBo, despite your assertions to the contrary. Do ir again and you may well be sanctioned or even banned.

    I'm very surprised of your decision to completely cancel my comment. Not greened, not moved in the Playground or Clearance Items threads, but immediately deleted. I think, it's the first time this happen in this abrupt way, and I don't see any reason for such a reaction. I didn't used offensive words, and I only reported documented facts.


    My comment was not a "thinly veiled attack", it was just a "open plain evaluation" of the apparent behavior of a public researcher at a public university which publicly claimed on many public media of having measured 12 kW of alleged excess heat generated by a table top device during the public demo held in Bologna on January 14, 2011. This conclusion of him was based on a couple of presumed data that I can't explain otherwise, except for an intentional misrepresentation of experimental data. If you have any other explanation, why don't you provide it?


    My comment was in theme. THH had just accused Levi of practicing "bad science" following a mistake in the emissivity used in the Lugano report. This aspect seems to be quite controversial and has given rise to hundreds, perhaps thousands of comments in recent years.


    On the contrary, the inconsistency between the pump capacity and the flow rate reported in the UniBo document issued on January 2011 is much more apparent and incontestable. In fact, Levi claimed to have calibrated the pump for 2 weeks, but on the front panel of that pump was clearly indicated a max output of 12 L/h, a value much lower than that one he claimed in his report (equivalent to 17.6 L/h).


    I can't understand why these considerations are not allowed in this forum. Which specific rules do they break?


    Your comment above breaks the rules of civilised behaviour just for a start. As -despite your denial- so did almost every line in your deleted post which actually contained a criminal libel (in some jurisdictions). Accusing somebody who is not a member here of (effectively) deliberate scientific fraud from behind your avatar is certainly worthy of a 2 week ban. And you just got it. Alan.

  • Jed, given that this is supposedly a nuclear reaction which consumes little fuel and produces negligible ash, any idea why it ("HAD") doesn't continue indefinitely?

    I assume this is because HAD it is caused by gas evolving from the bulk and collecting at surface and near surface areas. Evidence from HAD, x-rays, helium, tritium and from other experiments point to the surface as the site of the reaction. Helium is particularly good evidence of this. Most of it comes out in the effluent gas. It would be stuck inside the bulk if Fleischmann had been correct, and the reaction was in the bulk. (Way below the surface.) It is difficult to get helium out from the bulk.


    Depending on the mass of Pd and the level of loading, most of the gas evolves out in a few hours with a small cathode, or a week or 10 days for a huge, 100 g cathode like the one Mizuno used. After it comes to the surface, it soon comes right out into the cell. It does not stay in the near surface. After some time, it seems the concentration falls below some level and the reaction gradually stops. In other words, even though the fuel produces ~10 million times more heat than chemical fuel, it has to be at a certain concentration, and after a few hours or days there isn't any more fuel left at that concentration in the parts of the metal that produce the reaction.


    If you keep pushing the deuterium back into the cathode, with ongoing electrolysis in a closed cell, the reaction lasts for as long as you like, with just a tiny amount of heavy water. That would be what you describe here, "a nuclear reaction that consumes little fuel." Such cells with a few grams of heavy water have produced far more energy than you could get if you burned all of the furniture and books in the lab. About as much as 7 kg of gasoline. They only ran for a few months. They probably have enough fuel to run for years, although I expect contamination would prevent that.


    IR cameras, x-ray detectors, and post-experimental examination of the cathodes show that only a fraction of the metal takes part in the reaction. The rest of the metal is inert. Even if there is gas left in the surface, most of it will do nothing. The parts of the surface that get hot producing cold fusion may drive out the gas sooner than the inert parts.


    The rate at which gas evolves from Pd and other hydrides is complicated. I do not know much about it. However, metal hydride storage for hydrogen fuel cell automobiles and other applications has been developed, as an alternative to compressed gas. Bockris and others who were developing this told me that hydride storage and release can be controlled quite well -- as well as compressed gas can be. There is zero chance of a sudden, explosive release, like you get from a punctured high-pressure tank. In other words, hydride de-gassing is inherently limited in speed, and it occurs in a regular, predictable fashion. It goes faster when you heat up the metal, but the rate is still limited. That would explain why HAD is often remarkably stable, and why it keeps coming back to the same power level, and why it gradually declines.

  • The reason you often cite this "test" is to impress about the energy, not the power.

    That is incorrect. The power of HAD is usually quite impressive. Not just the energy. Measurable HAD does not happen unless conditions are excellent, a larger fraction of the metal surface than normal participates, and power is high.


    To be more exact, it might happen, but it would be difficult to detect. There is no doubt that in any electrolysis cold fusion experiment that produces excess heat, the heat lingers after electrolysis stops. If you want to call that HAD, then it is nearly always present. Usually, the term is used to mean a cathode that boils away the electrolyte and gradually de-gasses while producing high, easily measured power. Or, in one case, when the cathode got so hot it vaporized.

    So it should have been redone with the same size cathodes and everything else the same except the instrumentation should have been suitable and the results should have been recorded.

    This was done hundreds of times, as I said.

  • I suspect, after another 3-4 years of supposed tests/demos/fake customers etc

    and a grand total of zero sales, factories, customers, replications Rossi will take whatever money he has scammed from whoever and just go away.

    If that was the intention of Rossi why to sue IH ? What you are writing is nonsense.

    Your desire that no Rossi follower will be in this forum is only a dream- Sleep well.