Posts by JedRothwell

    One reason for the difference in speed between calibration and control would be if the sample rate was different - however i believe that the spreadsheets capture real time for each sample, which makes that not something that could cause an incorrect time axis.


    The HP A/D gadget samples 20,000 times a second (I think it was) and records the average of the 20,000 values every 5 seconds, for all channels. The 5-second interval is programmable. It used to be different, because one instrument only worked with a fixed time interval that was slightly longer.

    probably just an error in translation from the Japanese versions of the spreadsheets?


    There are many errors in the transition from a 1980s spreadsheet format made by the HP gadget, to a newer spreadsheet, to the Google spreadsheet, to the American spreadsheet. LOTS of problems. All variables and equations are converted to constants. The text becomes completely unreadable. I have screen shots of the original, which I use by guess and by golly to insert what I think the Japanese should say.


    It is big pain in the butt. That is why I have not uploaded any spreadsheets lately. I don't have the time to make every correction and check everything, and no matter what I do, trolls such as THH will accuse Mizuno and I of lying; they will insist the data comes from another instrument, and they will make up endless other bullshit reasons to dismiss the data. Perhaps I am intimidated, and I should ignore them and just upload the spreadsheet. I will have time after the conference.


    If they have not intimidated me, they have probably intimidated others, and they have certainly replaced honest discussion with trolling and unfounded accusations of lies and incompetence.

    I think suppression is the wrong work: however the active data is undoubtedly different, using V*I to calculate power rather than (presumably) the Yogakawa analyser.


    I repeat: the Yokogawa analyzer is not connected to the A/D HP gadget. Data from it is not collected into the spreadsheets. When you turn on the power and adjust the Variac, you look at the numbers on the analyzer because they are large and right there. You then check the computer display from time to time to be sure they agree with the analyzer, and you check the AC meter. They always agree. The only numbers shown in any report are from the V*I collected by the HP gadget.


    That's all there is to it. If you don't believe me, that's fine. Go right ahead and continue making these ridiculous claims. But please do not say I never told you this. You should just say "Jed is lying."


    I doubt Jed is in any position to explain this himself:


    I explained it, again and again. I told you that only the V*I data is in report. I told you that the same HP channels are used to collect the data from the control and then the active reactor. I am sure of this BECAUSE I WAS THERE. I have a photo of me operating the Variac, watching the analyzer. Mizuno showed me how he moves the leads from the control to the active. I can see where the wires go into the A/D gadget. The channels are in the same order as the spreadsheet columns.



    Why do these methodological issues matter? Because if unresolved they show bad practice that could easily result in significant mistakes leading to false positives.


    These methodological issues do not exist. They were invented by you and by Ascoli. They are bullshit, lies and trolling, intended to confuse the issue and raise questions where no questions exist. Data from the analyzer has never been tied into the A/D converter at any time in the history of these experiments. I never said it was tied in. Mizuno never said that. Many people have visited him, and none of them have ever said that. Yet you and Ascoli insist that is the configuration!

    I would like to see Seven_of_twenty demonstrate how to peg two battery operated digital radiation meters. That would be the most astounding trick in the history of stage magic.

    Before anyone says, "you could do this by briefly exposing a source of radiation" let me point out that at the distances involved, and the radiation levels of the meters, you would kill everyone in the room in the time it takes to expose it manually. Plus you would have to rob a nuclear reactor to get a source that powerful.

    Dozens of specialists probably did give Rossi some credit based on the Levi report. That's reasonable.

    Here is something else I think Seven_of_twenty does not appreciate. Scientists often talk as if they believe a claim. During a conference they will ask the author questions as if they agree. But, when you talk to them later they may say, "I doubt it" or even "I think it is a bunch of crap."


    They also sometimes take a result as real for the sake of argument, to think about what ramifications it might have if it were true. That does not mean they actually think it is true.


    Regarding Rossi, I know many scientists who visited a Rossi demonstration, including Celani who measured a burst of radiation when the machine turned on, using two portable meters. (This greatly upset Rossi.) That is pretty good evidence that some anomalous nuclear event occurred. Seven_of_twenty thinks that Rossi is some sort of clever, sleight of hand magician. I would like to see Seven_of_twenty demonstrate how to peg two battery operated digital radiation meters. That would be the most astounding trick in the history of stage magic. Yet when I asked Celani later, "do you think it actually worked" he said: "Who knows?" He said we don't have enough data and it hasn't been replicated.


    I am aware of dozens of cold fusion experiments that have some support, done by competent people, that have not been replicated. I do not believe them, but I do not disbelieve them either. I am in a quantum state like the cat. It seems such indecision is anathema to Seven_of_twenty, as it is to most conformists. They want a clear, black and white answer to every question. An example of an undecided experiment would be the Au results from Ohmori. I visited his lab and saw the equipment and the used Au cathodes. He was a superb electrochemist. I could not tell the difference between used and unused cathodes. Used ones were not a bit tarnished, which is very surprising. I cannot judge whether these results are real or not. But, as a working assumption -- or for the sake of argument -- I assume they are.

    Excess Energy from A Vapor Compression System by Bin-Juine Huang, National Taiwan University

    His interest has been Cavitation-involved (or LENR) energy technology (since 2018)

    From one of the photos he showed, I believe one of his examples was the hydrodynamics gadget (https://www.hydrodynamics.com/). I worked on this years ago, visiting them several times. I observed excess heat ranging from 1.05 to 1.15 of input. Recovery without excess heat was ~0.90 as I recall. Two methods of calorimetry were used. The second was with a custom designed flow calorimeter, which looked very reliable and professional to me. It was designed by the Dean of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Tech., whose name I forget. It produced a clear result of 1.15.


    The company no longer wishes to discuss the fact that the machine sometimes appears to produce excess heat.

    I've not read enough to satisfy JedRothwellapparently, but I have followed Rossi for coming up on 9 years, in meticulous detail.

    I was not discussing your evaluation of Rossi. I said you have not found technical errors in any major cold fusion study. I mean a study published in a journal or ICCF proceedings. Rossi never published anywhere. Do you think you have found a technical problem, or any problem in any study other than Rossi and Defkalion? If so, which study, and (if you recall) what problem?


    Finding out that Rossi is a fraud is quite different from discovering an error in tritium detection or calorimetry. It calls for a different skill set. You have to know the difference between input electricity and noise, which you do not know. I am not being sarcastic or insulting here: I am stating as a fact that you do not understand this, as shown in your many comments here. You ended up dismissing my attempts to explain this, so it is clear you still don't get it. The maximum electric power input in the Mizuno experiments cannot cause as much noise as the ambient temperature changes. They are 4 times lower. So, improving the COP by lowering input power would not improve the s/n ratio or improve confidence in the result. You do not grasp that, so your evaluation of the experiment is totally off base.


    The problem was that with a little effort, Rossi was able to bamboozle dozens of LENR specialists and others such as the Swedish scientists who tested the hot cats with him.

    "Dozens" of specialists and scientists did not test the hot cats. Only a few did. They were convinced because their own instruments showed excess heat. Rossi did not interfere as far as I know. I do not know of any major technical reasons to doubt their conclusions:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf


    I do not think that you know any technical reasons to doubt this either. I doubt it because of subsequent events, and Rossi's obvious fraud, and the Penon report. I suppose you agree with me. Those are value judgements, not technical reasons. They are valid but we can't debate them in scientific terms. Only in terms of history, politics, human nature, like any news story.


    Dozens of specialists probably did give Rossi some credit based on the Levi report. That's reasonable. There is no harm in that. I gave him some credit. But if IH had asked me, "should we fund this at $10 million?" I would have said: "Let's see some more tests first. Start with less funding than that." They never asked me.

    We will try to supply more info for this simulation. Contact me after the conference.


    I think you can use any mesh from any source to study the thermal charactoristics. The thermal mass of every object in the reactor does not amount to much.

    LEAP from David J. Nagel LENRIA Experiment and Analysis Program

    To privde a means for LENR to break out to become recognized and funded as a legitimate field of Science.

    This looks promising to me. I am glad they have Imam making Pd-B cathodes.


    Good calorimetry.


    Grain orientation studies are good. The grains in the new material are smaller. That's probably a good thing, according to Robert Huggins.

    The input power is measured differently between the control and active run spreadsheets. In the control case with a mains power analyser. In the active case with figures computed from V*I.


    That is completely wrong. Where do you and Ascoli come up with this stuff? The spreadsheet is generated by the multichannel A/D HP gadget, and it only records V*I on fixed channels. The analyzer has its own memory and it can be dumped into a computer, but it is not part of the automatic data collection system. Perhaps it could be interfaced, but it is not in these studies. It is used to confirm the readings, as is the AC meter between the wall and the power supply.


    When you turn on the Variac to set the power, you look at the analyzer screen. It is easier to read than the computer. The two always agree.


    The analyzer was purchased for the plasma discharge experiments, which have rapidly changing input power.


    The HP gadget measures electric power on the same channels (corresponding to spreadsheet columns) with the same wires during calibrations and active runs. The wires are unplugged from one machine and plugged into the other. There are two other channels connecting to the blower power, and several other channels are connected to the pressure gauge and various other things.

    When reviewing science, the average scientist is easy to fool, often even in their own field, if someone takes the deliberate steps to deceive them.

    How do you know this? Have you read a study somewhere comparing the gullibility of scientists to bankers, real-estate agents, engineers, programmers, sanitation workers, restaurant managers and so on? It seems to me that people in all walks of life are scammed, in all kinds of ways. The business section of the newspapers are full of stories of people getting scammed in myriad ways. You might think that bankers and engineers are hard-headed, but bank scams are common, and engineering scandals (such as unsafe buildings) are common in Japan where standards are lax and enforcement often lacking.


    You are making a generalization, probably with no data. It may be your impression that scientists are thus and such. It may be part of popular culture. I have a lot of experience dealing with scientists. Much of the popular culture ideas about them are wrong. Such as the idea that they are open to new ideas. Or they are apolitical, idealistic or objective. In my experience, academic scientists tend to be cutthroat political animals who will lie, steal ideas, cheat and back-stab as much as any group and more than, say, programmers or office workers. (Programmers and office workers are not inherently good, but they can seldom score an advantage with dirty politics.)

    "Skeptics have not discovered any errors in any major cold fusion study."


    Not true! Sorry.


    LENR-Forum readers know, or can easily learn, that the "1992 boil-off experiment" - that is

    Surely you realize I disagree. I know that you think you discovered errors, just as Morrison, THH and others think they did, but I disagree. There is no need for you to reiterate your claims in detail as if we were unaware of them. You need only say, "I disagree."

    A couple of people who are trying to replicate Mizuno have told me that they rubbed the Ni mesh with Pd, then looked at the mesh with SEMs and found little or no Pd attached. The Ni seems to be rubbing off more than Pd going on. I have asked Imam (NRL metallurgist), Mizuno and others how to make the Pd softer, probably with annealing.


    Another person suggested that when you rub the mesh, you should place it on a hard surface, such as steel, rather than, say, a paper towel.



    I am a relieved to learn why these particular replications are not working. Once you know what the problem is, you can look for a solution.

    Perhaps they talked to Storms or McKubre, but evidently did not even act on their advice.

    Yesterday they told me they did talk to Storms, but they decided not to act on his advice, for the most part.


    They also confirmed my impression that in their Pd-D experiments, they probably did not achieve high enough loading to produce cold fusion, according to McKubre's graph. (https://www.lenr-canr.org/word…loads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg) In one case, they may have come close. However, as you see in the graph, at borderline loading ratios below 0.96 you may get heat or you may not. Bear in mind that various method of measuring loading will produce varying ratios.

    Respectfully disagree. Skeptics potentially weed out scum like Rossi.

    Skeptics have not discovered any errors in any major cold fusion study. You say you haven't even read the papers, and it is obvious you know nothing about them, so you cannot discover anything or contribute anything to the discussion. You do not even understand the difference between input power and noise. All of the assertions, claims, and physics suggested by Morrison, THH, Ascoli, you and the other so-called skeptics have been wrong. They have contributed nothing. Calling them "skeptics" is a misnomer, because they never question their own beliefs, or the beliefs of their fellow "skeptics." The moment Ascoli comes up with a cockamamie hypothesis, THH immediately signs on to it.

    Scientists are not trained to detect sleight of hand or deception and do not expect it. Why should they? It is fortunately rare.

    "Scientists" are as good at that as anyone else. Some of them are lot better, since they know the laws of physics. You cannot generalize about them. I have known a few scientists who were good amateur magicians, and more than a few who were good at poker -- which involves lying.

    Once shared, the value contained in the information would be lost to the original owner.

    If the original owner files for a patent, and the patent is upheld, the information is not lost. Someone like Gates is likely to file a good patent and will have the money to uphold it. Even someone such as Mizuno might be able to cash in, because he will attract wealthy supporters who will pay the legal fees in return for a percentage of the income.


    Without a patent, the value will be lost. But it will be lost in any case. A few months after a practical device is introduced, it will be reverse engineered and every industrial company will know how to make it.



    Addendum: On the other hand, even when you file for a patent that you are likely to get, it is sometimes best to keep the device secret for as long as possible. That way, rivals will not be able to acquire a device, learn how to use it, and then file patents for improvements. I think large companies such as IBM that usually succeed in getting a patent still like to keep things under wraps for as long as they can. Perhaps Gates is doing this. This strategy makes business sense, but in the case of cold fusion it might prevent others from finding a mistake in your work.