Posts by JedRothwell

    The 46.02 during a power in discontinuity is because of different averaging (the Yokogawa outputs will average delayed a bit from the V*I values).

    How would you know? Did you break into the lab to see the Yokogawa outputs? THEY WERE NOT PUBLISHED!!! Heck, they were not even preserved, so you must have a time machine.

    Oh wait, I told you that. You are trolling. I do not understand what you and Ascoli hope to accomplish by repeating this outrageous garbage, but you seem determined to repeat it ad nauseam. You are weird.

    V*I readings for the active run, where the load is a possibly oscillatory plasma discharge,

    There have been no plasma tests in the present set of experiments. The tests with plasma were all described as such in the papers. There are no hidden ones. The plasma tests produced no excess heat for about a year, so obviously input and output power was measured correctly. That's like a 1-year calibration. The plasma calibrations also produced no excess heat.

    As I see it, Iwamura's results resemble Mizuno's more than you might think. Both are Ni with layers of other metal. Both are loaded at surprisingly low pressure, and produce excess heat. Both researchers said that higher pressure did not enhance loading. On the surface the experiments seem dissimilar, but when you consider the mass of reactants the excess heat is in the same ball park. Iwamura has Ni - Cu - Ni - Cu layers. I wonder if Cu absorbs more H and expands faster than Ni, the way Pd does. If so, this supports the Storms theory.

    Mastromatteo was also surprised at how much D or H the Ni was absorbing. He loads at 950 mbar (0.8 atm; 95,000 Pa).

    If you're talking about Celani's report at a 2011 Rossi demo, it was anecdotal and just as worthless and useless as Mizuno's water bucket anecdote.

    It was anecdotal, which is why Celani said "who knows?" when I asked him what to make of it. Mizuno's heat after death, on the other hand, was recorded on a pen recorder, described in detail in several reports and a book, witnessed by his co-author, and replicated hundreds of times. That's not "anecdotal." That's the opposite of an anecdote.

    But anyway, you should tell us how Rossi triggered the event witnessed by Celani. What sleight of hand trick did he use? Assuming Celani was not lying, it must have happened. It is not likely he made a mistake reading two different meters. Since it was a single isolated event (unlike Mizuno's HAD it was not reproduced hundreds of times) we cannot draw any conclusions, but it was probably a real physical event.

    "Anecdotal" is not a curse word. It does not mean "unscientific" or "worthless" or "should be ignored." Anecdotal events have often led to important scientific and technological breakthroughs. We should pay attention to them, and try to replicate the ones that may be important evidence of an anomaly.

    "I do not know of any major technical reasons to doubt their conclusions:"

    Of course there are. Lewan is the poster child for these and the Swedes are not far behind

    Those are not technical reasons. A technical reason would be something specific about the instruments or techniques, not the people or their reputations.

    Your suspicions based on personality are valid, but they are not technical.

    This is not a complicated distinction. Unless you can point to a physics textbook to validate your critique, it is not technical. It may be valid, but we cannot debate it based on the laws of physics.

    Most of the tests were actually done by Rossi. He or Levi were directly involved in all.

    That is not what Levi wrote. He says he and his co-workers set up the experiment, with their own instruments, and there was a video camera pointed to the experiment the entire time which they used to confirm that Rossi never touched anything. That's what they said. If you believe Levi, and you assume that is correct, it means Rossi was not directly or indirectly involved.

    any case i am not able to recognize any trigger point from the curves of the diagrams, they all look to me like standard electrical heater.

    Yes. I addressed this in my presentation. Fortunately, the most recent results do not look anything like a standard electric heater, so it is unlikely this is an instrument artifact.

    Control from external resistive heater - measured with Yokogawa power analyser

    Active from internal plasma heater - measured with V*I, V and I averaged over 5s (or so).

    [And, for ascoli, evidence that both would have been measured with Yokogawa, but the spreadsheets for the active test contain V*I in the power column (in addition to V and I columns) ]

    Jed, I'm calling you out on this. I'm not saying it is sinister, but it is just not right,

    It is not right because you made it up. The Yokogawa power analyzer was never used to record power with this series of experiments, only to confirm it. As I said.

    You should explain to us how to interface a digital instrument to the HP A/D board. As I said, the spreadsheet comes directly from the A/D board. Do you think the Yokogawa has an outlet that converts the measured power level to a voltage? That would be a retro design! A digital instrument that produces an analog voltage. It would greatly reduce accuracy and precision.

    Given the utter absurdity of your notion that a digital instrument can be read by an analog to digital interface, I would not call your allegations and calling me out "sinister." "Asinine, idiotic, utter ridiculous" come to mind. This is not effective trolling. You need to up your game.

    The Yokogawa was used years ago for the experiments that destroyed cathodes with extreme plasma discharge. See:

    Experiments that use an internal heater have a different equivalent thermal circuit than the one I posted earlier. This circuit would apply to R20 as well as the earlier experiments if they also use an internal plasma heater.

    I think the plasma experiments ended with R10 (around there). Later reactors had no windows so they were not used with plasma. R14 does not have a window.

    Indeed. For that matter, why does any LENR device purported to make much more (x2? x5? x10?) than the input heat requirement for it to run, why does such a device stop when the electrical heat is removed?

    With the electrolytic method, when you stop electrolysis, the reaction stops after a while because the NAE gradually decomposes. The deuterium degasses, and goes out of solution with the Pd. This takes time, which is why you have heat after death (HAD). The duration and power level of HAD depends on how much Pd there is. The longest lasting HAD was observed by Mizuno, because his cathode was 100 g, which is 50 to 100 times larger than most cathodes.

    With electrolysis and other methods, when the reaction is underway, a heat pulse will often boost it to a higher level. This has been widely observed. Less often, people have reported that sudden cooling will quench the reaction. This has been observed when cold D2O make-up water is added to a cell. See the graphs from Fleischmann and Miles. With gas loaded cells, Mizuno reported on various methods of quenching the reaction. Pumping out will stop it, but it takes a while for the gas to come out of the metal. Cooling it down will quench it. Adding air to the cell will quench it. The two methods may be the same thing, since air will cool the cell.

    With the latest Mizuno experiments, it seems there is a minimum threshold for heat production. Reducing input power apparently lowers the temperature below that. The situation is a little unclear. There are indications of HAD, meaning it may take a while to go below the threshold, depending on how hot it is. The higher the temperature, the stronger the reaction, which Storms predicts based on his theory. Small reactions must be close to low end threshold. Storms predicts that "a runaway reaction is possible at a critical high temperature." (See the slide in my presentation.)

    That information - that the active run was perhaps heated by plasma discharge, raises issues about whether V*I is accurate.

    That information is in the papers. These were plasma discharge experiments. How else could it be heated, given that fact?

    We know the V*I is accurate because . . . <drumroll> it was confirmed with a $16,000 Yokogawa power meter. As I said. And said. And said. And said. As you will deny, deny, deny and lie, lie, lie about. Carry on!

    can anyone please explain to me why, if the heat is triggering the LENR, than the LENR stop immediately after Mizuno stop the electrical heater?

    I do not think it does, but it does seem to stop rather quickly in some cases. I was planning to look into this in few weeks, with a new set of data showing what happens when a ~100 W reaction is cut off.

    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 ( 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:

    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.