I seem to recall Dr. Celani reported radiation detection once in a demo of the 2011 simple "steam" ecats.
That is correct.
JedRothwell
Verified User
- Member since Oct 11th 2014
- Last Activity:
Posts by JedRothwell
-
-
As for the claim by those that they need to be anonymous lest they compromise their claimed jobs, that is a vacuous claim made without a shred of evidence. Show us the data!
I do not know anyone who fears being fired for posting here. But if there is such a person, and they showed you the data, it seems likely that would lead to them being fired. Wouldn't it? So this demand is unreasonable. It is as if you were saying: "I will not believe this casserole is spoiled unless you eat it and get food poisoning."
-
Another is to accept that there are those whom do not like arguing with an anonymous poster, so don't start an argument with them. To be honest, in their shoes, after spending a lifetime toiling away doing the work, to then have some nameless poster tell me my conclusions are wrong, or I screwed up...well, that would be irritating. I would tell them to shove off.
See:
https://www.wired.com/2006/04/the-wikipedia-faqk/
QUOTE:
But why should I contribute to an article? I'm no expert.
That's fine. The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War – and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge – get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.
-
Rossi for one might have as a 'money making retirement strategy' the filing of scores of such legal actions as it is perfectly clear he is regularly and routinely liabled with malice on and with the support of this forum and many other forums by named and anon defaming posters and posers.
I do not think so. All of the accusations against him that I have seen are backed by the lawsuit docket, mainly by statements that Rossi himself made, and by his Penon report. An accusation is not slander when it is true, and the person making the statement can prove it is true. What better proof can there be than Rossi's own words? What he said in his own defense, and the report that he filed to prove his claims, prove beyond doubt that he is a thief and a con man. He bragged about that!
-
An error in the boili-off enthalpy due to foam does not depend on whether excess enthalpy was found before boil-off.
That was ruled out by several tests such as inventorying the salt, which you ignore.
There might (indeed you well know there are) other possible issues with those earlier calculations.
There might be errors in any experiment, even Newton's prism experiments. That assertion can never be falsified, so it is not scientific. You have to say what those errors might be. Neither you nor Ascoli has pointed to any error that Fleischmann did not conclusively rule out.
Address Ascoli's specific points?
You should address Fleischmann's specific points, but you never will. You will evade and evade, and make statements that cannot be tested or falsified such as "there might be errors." You have never found any error in this experiment or any other major cold fusion experiment. You only pretend that you have found errors, or that Ascoli has.
-
I can understand our academic/university prof/student members -who we have many of here, wishing to remain anonymous.
Yes, I said something similar earlier. Those people would get in hot water. They would be treated like someone who rats out a drug dealer, only more politely. As Woodrow Wilson said, academic politics are vicious because the stakes are so low.
-
Anonymity helps prevent racism and bigotry and sexism.
On the contrary, I think it promotes expressions of these things. This is one of the reasons KKK members used to cover their faces. When no one knows who you are, you tend to be bolder and meaner. This has been widely noted since the internet become widespread. This is why, for example, newspapers did not allow anonymous letters in the pre-internet era.
Anonymity might prevent sexism against an individual woman if no one could tell from her screen name that she is female, but it will not prevent expressions of sexism, racism, and so on.
I have mixed feelings about it. I myself would never think of posting a comment anonymously. Nor would I ever say something online that I would hesitate to say in person to anyone, including a person I am criticizing. In my opinion, if you would not have the guts to say it the person, you shouldn't say it at all. Of course exceptions must be made for whistleblowers, people reporting corrupt officials, or people ratting out drug dealers! I mean in ordinary, non-dangerous online discussions.
-
Pure heresay and speculation? Morrison was informed by someone that claimed Fleschmann had told someone that only 300 seconds electric logging intervals where used throughout.
The paper shows data points averaged every 300 seconds. Not taken; averaged. Taking one data point every 300 seconds is quite different from taking thousands and averaging them. When Morrison challenged Fleischmann at the conference, saying this was inadequate, Fleischmann showed a slide of an oscilloscope trace of the data. The trace showed no spikes or other problems that would call into question the averaged data. The oscilloscope data was not included in the paper, but Morrison knew it was taken.
The point is, an oscilloscope is much faster with higher resolution than most data collection computers.
-
Reading the comments of Rossi fans is pretty much pointless. Whatever opinions they express are either based strictly upon what Rossi says . . .
Actually, as I said above, their opinions are not based strictly on what Rossi says. The only technical claim he ever made is in the Penon report, and it is nothing like what A.A. or Axil imagine. What Rossi says on his webpage has no technical content, from what I have seen. There are no numbers or details.
(I haven't watched the video of his demo. Perhaps he makes falsifiable assertions there.)
Other people have written technical reports about his work that can be evaluated. As I have often said, this one appears to have merit, but at this late date, I don't know what to make of it:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf
There is nothing in this report that reveals anything about the internals of the devices. I gather the "protected" thread will be about how to replicate, or about how the gadgets work. I don't see how anyone could guess that, even assuming the gadgets do work. There is zero information about them, even including the patents. This Levi report and the Penon report do tell us about the calorimetry, and also about Rossi's technical skills, judgement, and overall believability.
-
I think it is a major mistake to censor opinions on specific threads.
It is not censoring. It is just a polite request. Just ignore that thread. If the discussion there centered around claims such as "there is no reason to distrust Rossi" that would be annoying, but as long as they are discussing the imaginary physics of his imaginary claims, it is harmless. Pointless, but harmless.
I do think it would be a good idea for the pro-Rossi crowd such as Axil and A.A. to read the Penon report, because it is the one and only technical report that Rossi published. I doubt he will ever publish another. It would help them understand him. However, they are allergic to facts so they will not read it. For those who want to know what Rossi actually claimed, rather than a version that you yourself invent out of whole cloth, the report is here:
-
I find kind of hypocrite that those who demand identities to be public would also require a private discussion forum hidden from public view.
I believe that is to avoid trolls and useless arguments, not to hide their identity. Everyone knows who the major cold fusion researchers are.
-
Is that one year payback on your mind in Georgia?.
I am talking about the energy payback. Not the money payback! One year may seem like a short time given all the embodied energy in a nuke, but remember that a nuke produces a gigawatt and it is turned on all the time; 24/7 for the whole year. It is a baseline generator. A gigawatt is enough to power a large city. Two nukes produce 1/4th of all the electricity in Georgia:
https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=GA
One of the critics who claims the energy payback time is 6 years claims there is a large amount of embodied energy in the uranium oxide fuel, and much of that is from fossil fuel from mining. That can't be right. If that were the case, the uranium oxide would end up costing as much per joule as fossil fuel does. It is far cheaper. You cannot hide such costs.
The embodied energy in ethanol biofuel exceeds the energy content of the ethanol. In other words, the farmers and production factories use more oil energy to produce the ethanol than you get from burning the ethanol. It is an energy sink, not an energy source. That fact cannot be hidden. It shows up in the cost of ethanol, and the fact that ethanol only exists with massive government subsidies. It is government handout to OPEC and gigantic agrobusiness. See Pimentel's book.
-
The energy payback-time for conventional fission nuclear plants is about 4.6 years (40 years live time guaranteed)
Most sources I have seen put the energy payback time for nukes at about a year. That includes the fuel and embodied energy in the construction materials. Here is a detailed industry estimate that works out to be about 0.7 years:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i…return-on-investment.aspx
Here's two sources that claim it is 6 years. I doubt it.
https://evcricketenergy.wordpr…-understand-the-question/
https://energypost.eu/renewabl…nuclear-dispelling-myths/
The fastest payback time is for gas fired aeroderivative generators.
-
Maybe active sites are cooperative via some kind of long range magnetic effect?
I doubt that, although I wouldn't know. I just mean there are more sites because there are more chances the NAE will be formed. All else being equal, 1 kg of material will have many more sites than 10 to 50 g, which is the size of the samples Takahashi et al. were testing a few years ago. They could only make small batches of material, which they then separated into even smaller amounts. They were testing 10 and 20 g samples. See:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KitamuraAmdemetalde.pdf
I still have some doubts about the calorimetry, mostly because I have not read it carefully enough to feel confident I understand it. It is complicated.
-
Staker link returns a not found error.
Ha! I jumped the gun. It will be there in about a half hour.
. . . Okay, it is there now.
What is Propulsion Science Department/Space Materials Laboratory
and what cataloging system does the report number, AEROSPACE REPORT NO. ATR-2017-0176, refer to pls.?
It is one of the laboratories at the Aerospace Corporation (https://aerospace.org/). It is at their headquarters in El Segundo. The report number is their numbering system. It is a pretty big company, with 3,900 employees and many locations. See p. 26 and p. 28:
-
See:
https://www.researchgate.net/p…_by_CNZ7_Sample_and_H-Gas
My comment:
The sample is ~1 kg. That is much more material than you were using years ago. That's good! I am very pleased to see that people are increasing the mass of reactant. I believe that is why the level of heat increased. I believe more heat comes from a larger number of active sites.
Okay, that may seem like an odd thing to say. It may seem obvious that heat will increase as the mass of reactant increases. But I do not think that has been tested -- or demonstrated -- up until now. We just assumed that is how it works.
Even what we consider obvious aspects of the phenomenon should be tested. It is possible that a giant mass of reactant might have no active sites. Or it might sinter and stop working.
I am pleased to see larger samples being tested, but that does not mean small scale tests such as Beiting and Staker are useless. They do superb calorimetry and their signal to noise ratio is high, so there is much to be learned from their tests as well. I am glad to see high s/n small-scale tests AND glad to see scaled-up tests. Both are valuable.Note that Staker also reported run-away heat events. I believe they are roughly similar in scale to this, when you adjust for the amount of reactant and surface area.
Beiting: -
See:
https://www.researchgate.net/p…_by_CNZ7_Sample_and_H-Gas
My comment:
The sample is ~1 kg. That is much more material than you were using years ago. That's good! I am very pleased to see that people are increasing the mass of reactant. I believe that is why the level of heat increased. I believe more heat comes from a larger number of active sites.
Okay, that may seem like an odd thing to say. It may seem obvious that heat will increase as the mass of reactant increases. But I do not think that has been tested -- or demonstrated -- up until now. We just assumed that is how it works.
Even what we consider obvious aspects of the phenomenon should be tested. It is possible that a giant mass of reactant might have no active sites. Or it might sinter and stop working.
I am pleased to see larger samples being tested, but that does not mean small scale tests such as Beiting and Staker are useless. They do superb calorimetry and their signal to noise ratio is high, so there is much to be learned from their tests as well. I am glad to see high s/n small-scale tests AND glad to see scaled-up tests. Both are valuable.Note that Staker also reported run-away heat events. I believe they are roughly similar in scale to this, when you adjust for the amount of reactant and surface area.
Beiting: -
Suggested that to Rossi years ago,
Use ups/battery for demo and to drive control circuits.
Battery Power and energy density are fixed,so the “Energy In” component of the COP is known.
That's a good idea. I think that would be as convincing as converting heat to electricity and running with no input, plus it would be a lot cheaper and simpler.
-
One reason for anonymity is that there have been zealots on free energy, LENR, psychic medium, religious and political web sites, etc., who will threaten the life and limb of those who disagree with them.
Really? I have never heard of that happening. Is there a documented example on the web somewhere? I am genuinely curious.
Others threaten libel lawsuits which even if without merit . . .
That I have heard about. Eugene Mallove was subjected to one that cost him a ton of money to get out of, by a crazy person in Florida named Ruggero Santilli.
(What is it about Florida?)
-
