Posts by Mary Yugo

    Quote

    I have talked this one to death and edited papers about it.

    What papers, please?


    Quote

    Basically when it is boiling at 1 atm, it saturates the bottom sensor, then the middle, leaving only the top one to show differences in power. Not that complicated. Other people made similar calorimeters and confirmed they work as described.

    Sorry but that means nothing to me. I've been around the block a few times with several types of calorimeters and never saw that. What does "saturate" mean in this context? What do you mean by "top sensor"? The diagram shows two thermistors embedded in the wall, towards the top of the device, one offset a few cm radially from the first. What does that arrangement measure and why?

    Quote

    No, this one has been discussed at great length. Not here, but elsewhere.

    For example?


    Quote

    I think the paper describes that pretty well. I will not repeat what it says.

    Of course not. Everyone who doesn't grasp it at first reading is either stupid or negligent. Typical.

    I guess nobody cares about discussing the details of the so-called 100W experiment. That's what usually happens with LENR reports. Lots of claims and claimed results and no follow up or proper exact replication by others. That's one of the main reasons main line science pays no attention. The poor quality of the papers (lousy figures, unclear materials and methods, weird choices of units for axes of graphs, blurry presentation on the page and questionable calibrations) are other reasons.


    So can anyone explain precisely how the calorimeter used in that experiment measures heat flow and heat production ? "First principles" please, not mumbo jumbo.


    Of course, I learned all that by not reading them (or, anyway, *trying* to read them)... right Jed?


    Quote

    In any case, there are many examples of high powered cold fusion with no input power at all...

    For appreciably long periods? Link or cite please. Or it's just hot air.


    Quote

    That depends on the nature of the input power. If it is direct current electricity it is easy to measure with extreme precision, so it can be subtracted with confidence.

    I am not concerned about the input power measurement. Anyone can do that accurately, assuming it's DC and not spikes or odd waveforms. It's the calorimetry that is, as always, in question, in Celani style experiments. The OUTPUT power is the problem, not the input.


    Quote

    That is to say, you could see the cells were boiling. After a while there was no more liquid between the anode and cathode, so there was no electrical current. Blank cells driven to high power immediately stop boiling when this happens, yet these cells not only continued to boil, they remained hot to the touch for hours.

    Woo Whoo! That ranks right up there on the woowoo scale with Rossi's stethoscopy and Steorn's oscilloscopy. You expect respect for LENR from that sort of statement? No wonder you got hornswoggled by Rossi.

    Lewan got roundly and thoroughly bamboozled by Rossi when he could have easily stopped it by simply asking for ONE proper calibration of the original ecat experiments he was observing and reporting. He could have asked the same of Levi in the early fluid flow calorimeter Levi did with original ecats in early 2011 which Lewan published in NyTeknik. Instead, he continued to exhibit incompetence or negligence or both for going on four years. His career as a science and technology reporter should not just be damaged. It should be ended because he is clearly neither sufficiently critical nor clever to discriminate between obvious scam and reality. But yes, he seems like a nice family type of guy. A very gullible one.


    Mary, that's quite enough from you on this particular topic. Your opinion of anybody who ever gave a taxi-cab ride to a cold-fusion associate are well known. Alan.

    Quote

    ... if you want to do so, please continue to mock me. Criticize me until no one even reads a single post I make. Because all it can do is benefit me by enticing me to spend more of my time in the real world rather than staying up all hours in the night chasing dreams that may never become tangible.


    @MrSelfSustain
    If you spend a lot of time reading about Rossi and the pure crappolla Rossi writes, you are indeed wasting your time. Remember, Rossi is a convicted felon. Rossi has done nothing but fool people, create costly frauds, and make truly huge and costly environmental disasters. Your problem is that you believe Rossi because what he offers is so enticing. Hey, what Bernie Madoff offered was even more enticing and made of much of the same stuff-- vapor. THINK! Rossi has made huge claims now going on seven years. Robotic factories, cheap isotopes, a substantial number of satisfied customers, certificators working away to make the ecats an everyday gadget offered in stores, and much more. And guess what? NOT ONE WORD OF IT, NOT ONE, HAS EVER BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED. Nothing Rossi ever says can be checked. You do not have to be well versed in science and technology to understand that-- just use a little common sense! If Rossi were telling the truth, the evolution of the device would not proceed (or more accurately, fail to proceed) as it has.


    There was never any need at all to design a hot cat before the original ecat was placed on the market. The original ecat supposedly made low pressure steam at very low cost and without carbon emissions. That would be enough to heat countless (billions) of residences world wide and to make Rossi billions of dollars. Instead, Rossi promoted obvious mismeasurement of hot cats using incorrect and insufficient instruments and methods. Now, he's claiming the incredibly unlikely "QuarkX". Interestingly, Quark was the name of a Star Trek character who was a merchant from a civilization without conscience for whom any deal they could foist on others was a good deal.


    Want to spend time to consider workable non polluting power sources that don't increase global warming, think about the new generation of fission reactors such as were recently featured on PBS/NOVA: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb…n-innovate-nuclear-power/ THIS, and not Rossi, Defkalion and Brillouin and BLP, is real science and encouraging technology for the coming decade.

    Amazing irony. Lewan is the guy whose total lack of suspicion and skeptical ability promoted and assisted Rossi's costly and fraudulent activities. I am surprised he is not also sued by IH for his gross negligence and incompetence in testing Rossi for years without insisting a single, NOT ONE, calibration during that whole time. Instead, Lewan swallowed Rossi's lies hook line and sinker and used his status as a journalist to promote them. He should talk about the need to be critical about novel inventions! Maybe he should focus on his many years of spectacular screwups with Rossi *and* Defkalion who also bamboozled him.

    @kirkshanhan @Jed Rothwell


    I'd be happy to get into a detailed discussion of the 100W paper. Maybe someone can start a new string about it so we don't bore those who don't care about that claim. I suggest starting with Jed explaining exactly how the calorimeter used in that study works. All I see in the paper is a block of some sort with the cell inside and three thermistor pairs embedded in the plastic (?) wall. One member of each pair is close to the center of the cavity of the calorimeter and the other is just a short distance towards the outside from it. Are these supposed to be a crude measure of heat flux using the material of the calorimeter wall as a "gradient layer" or what? That's the first place I stalled in reading the paper. How the heck does the calorimeter measure the heat flux from the reaction?


    yeah, I know, I am ignorant and never read anything or I'd know... now let's leave that aside and explain how the thing is supposed to measure heat excess.

    Nothing seems dumber to me than Rossi's claim to having manufactured his smallest and most radical device yet. Suppose he could make a Quark and he showed to someone like Elon Musk or Bill Gates. He'd be an instant billionaire. Rather, the quark "works" for Rossi like all the other Rossi claims, for example, the robotic factories, the cheaply made isotopes of nickel, the NATO colonel, the ever elusive customer and customers, etc. etc. etc. But the quark is dumber than everything before it. Why? Because Rossi is trying to extrapolate to absurdity the method used by Nigerian scammers to choose marks (victims) for their scams. This is all explained in this article: http://freethoughtblogs.com/si…id-and-yet-so-successful/



    I have no idea if this is a conscious effort on the part of Rossi or if it involves lunacy. But clearly, Rossi always chooses his marks with care, for example poor hapless Lewan and probably also Levi. So it makes sense he pitches only to people who are so inept at critical thinking and scientific evaluation that they will believe him. In my opinion, the Quark idea is too extreme to work on ANY investor, especially in light of Rossi's past and recent history, but then who would have thought he'd get away with all the other obviously idiotic claims he made and lies he told and still snare an organization like IH or Woodford? Or that Steorn's silly Orbo and constant beer parties and high salaries would have been financed by a group of very wealthy Irish farmers.

    Quote

    That is dead obvious. You need to find errors in the instruments or methods in every experiment that has produced significant excess heat. You have to show that thousands of experimental runs in 200 laboratories were all wrong, for one reason or another. If even one is correct, then cold fusion is real, and it makes no difference if the others are all wrong.


    No. You are relying on the possibility that even one is correct but in fact, most of the experiments use similar methods. For example, most experiments employ isoperibolic calorimetry and most involve low absolute energy levels and/or low COP's (power out/power in) therefore they are susceptible to noise. If these methods are wrong or the experimenters are sloppy, the results are meaningless. All could well turn out to me mismeasurements. Like Rossi's and Defkalions though not necessarily (not probably) fraudulent, just wrong and overly optimistic.


    That's why I like large results, both absolute power *and* energy *and* high COP. And of course, a very robust calorimetric method. I am pretty convinced I have not seen such a thing. Jed will say I don't look enough but in actuality I do. Reading many of the papers, I get bogged down in what amounts to a lack of clarity about what was done and how. A lot of the graphs are hard to understand, using, as they do, highly derived or normalized units on at least one axis. Sorry but it's too much trouble to decipher all that and it takes too much time. Most of the experiments I have seen, I could not replicate without having a long talk with the experimenter. So I am still very skepticular.


    Quote

    There is not the slightest chance you will find mistakes in all positive experiments.

    Of, sure there is. Well, to be picky, I may not, as you suggest, *personally* be able to find the mistakes but they may still be there. If everyone makes the same error or similar errors, all will be wrong. Science is not a popularity contest or a democratic election. Having a lot of claims to a positive result does not, of itself, insure a valid result. I find it amazing that LENR supposedly solves the world's energy problems and after all the time since 1989, nobody has made a practical, self sustaining and clear cut high energy source from it. All those people Jed cites not trying hard enough? All the wicked power companies and oil and nuclear giants suppressing it? Yah shoore.


    Quote

    Joshua Cude always discredited McKubre by claiming he was not really with SRI either, as he was not listed on their roster, but he was an employee who just retired. Tanzella has been there many years, and I have no doubt he is employed, and probably the leader of the LENR team there. Maybe it is SRIs personal disclosure policy or something.

    I don't know about that but McKubre is not credible because he is not discriminating or appropriately critical. He attends to total and obvious garbage like the Papp idea that energy can be extracted from noble gases without energy input.

    @MSS: that assumes Rossi is sane, which, at this point, is questionable. As for dragging things out, I don't think IH would have played along much longer. I bet they were at the end of their rope with Rossi never delivering anything workable. I bet they were about to sue him if he had not sued them.

    @Zephir_AWT


    My thinking about multiple wires is that these wires are low mass. Therefore, many of them can be heated by the same (or almost the same) heating power required for one wire. Yes, the heater would thus be more efficient and the signal to noise ratio (COP) would be much higher because the same amount (or almost the same amount) of heater power in would yield many more times the heat out. That would make accurate measurement much higher. How hard can it be? In more than 3 years of screwing around with these wires, they never tried it. Note that National Instruments gave up on them.

    Sorry I misspelled your name. I think we got off on the wrong track here. It's nothing personal. Making obvious errors with simple units is usually a "tell" of people who think they know what they are talking about with respect to a scientific subject but actually have no clue. I only recall calling attention to it, not insulting you personally. If I did that, I apologize and I assure you it was not intended. You are, of course, welcome to your opinion.


    I am often struck by the fact that obviously intelligent people like Shane and like yourself (you have to be smart to be an airline pilot and to have your career) still believe in total garbage like Steorn, Defkalion and Rossi and look without skepticism at bizarre claims like Brillouin's and Nanospire's. Think, man! If Rossi really had a cold fusion device that makes megawatts, do you think IH would not pay them? What sense does that make?


    @Wyttenbach If anyone dislikes Mills, perhaps it's because he sucks millions in research dollars over decades and produces nothing but razzle dazzle flashes (and more unlikely claims) for all that work and those resources, which could be better used.

    Jed, do you want to discuss the claimed 100W paper in detail, starting with the basic construction and calibration of the so-called calorimeter? Maybe starting another thread would be best? I don't believe that the methodology of heat measurement is sound. I also wonder why nobody bothered to repeat the construction and testing of a small device which seemingly makes 100W excess power essentially indefinitely. The original work is dated 1996! Where are the replications? Where are the improvements? Why are not universities everywhere studying this? But do you want to discuss this with me and others in a separate string?


    My theory about work with isoperibolic so-called calorimeters is that they are so sloppy and vague in design that calibration and other errors can hide in them and the excess heat results could be errors or noise. I never understood why, knowing about better calorimeters such as the gradient layer or Seebeck effect calorimeters Storms worked with, they don't use these or at least substitute heat flux transducers (many of them) for simple spot temperature measurements. Unless I misunderstood something, all these guys use to measure heat flow is three thermistor pairs where the members of the pair are embedded in some sort of plastic and are a few mm. apart. Is that wrong? Is that not what an "isoperibolic calorimeter" is? Where did that strange name come from anyway? Can anyone defend such crude technology?


    Oh yeah, I forgot. I am a stupid flunkie who can't and won't read grand and illustrious LENR papers as Jed is fond of reminding me.


    And about MFPM and Celani wires. Celani AND MFPM resist consistently the most OBVIOUS improvement suggested by me and others in their experiments-- namely, the addition of many more wires heated by the same heat source. This could increase the signal to noise, or so-called COP factor, by a factor of 10X or more and has been asked for since the Celani wires came to light, maybe what now...? Four years ago? WHY DON'T THEY DO THIS VERY OBVIOUS THING if the wires work at all? It isn't rocket science!

    Quote

    You got a lot of nerve [removed] criticizing me because you disagree where I put a forward slash...


    Sadly, you don't even seem to understand the critique. It's not about where you put a forward slash but about the fact that you don't seem to understand basic dimensional analysis and the use of units.


    Quote

    ... when you use a fake name to post in forums. Unlike you I do not disguise who I am.

    Bully for you-eee. Until I demand that you believe me based on my name rather than on what I write, that's also nonsense.


    Quote

    No Im not a scientist or physicist, but I have worked on energy projects specifically wind farm developments. I work for engineering firms overseeing construction of enormous water and wastewater systems of amazing complexity. I have 30 years experience building systems and have a strong understanding of all system components and how they integrate. I really don't care about the physics of Mills et al Rossi's cold fusion systems. I care about how they will operate and how they may integrate into my industry. I'm not here to criticize when someone makes a spelling error unlike you who finds great pleasure in belittling anyone with whom you may disagree. In other words offer helpful criticism or just sit in your cubicle and STFU.


    The problem you are missing with your lack of proper background in science and engineering is that Mills' and Rossi's "systems" almost certainly don't work and have no place in any industry. So, you disagree? What industry is Mills' device used in after more than 25 years of specious claims and expensive development? How about Rossi's stuff? Who uses it and where after claims of "customer" installations since at least 2011? Who are all the mysterious customers? Where are they and how do they maintain such complete and absolute secrecy? (clue: they do it by not existing!)


    Come on, John. Use your head. I know you badly wish these things were real but look at the evidence instead of the claims, for once!

    @Alan It was KW/H which I questioned. Not kWh/h which although incredibly silly still passes dimensional analysis. I could as well say kW cow week/cow week. A cow week, by the way, is a measure of volume, being the amount of milk produced in a week by one standard cow.


    Quote

    I'm still waiting for science to take up Mills glove and meet hem in pen fights about the theory - but he is ignored and we need to guess the truth.

    The reason Mills' extensive theories and mathematics are ignored is because, **according to Mills**, they predict generation of immense power and energy with his devices and so far, he has failed abysmally to prove cleanly that his devices indeed perform as he says. So in summary, modern quantum mechanics is highly predictive of reality on objects of appropriate size. Mills' theory, by contrast, predicts a powerful machine which he has built and made claims for but those claims have yet to be properly demonstrated and/or proven. So most people don't care about Mills and regard him as some sort of crank.

    Quote

    Here's where I get a bit confused on why Mills/BrLP meets such resistance on this board. Mills' device is now engineered at or close to the point of car engine reliability. The prototypes run at will, even in collaborators' labs. What's more, Mills announced his CIHT generation of Nickel-Hydrogen style anomalous heaters in 2008, at least a year before Rossi started making claims about a device that appears to be based on Nickel-Hydrogen chemistry. Mills shuttered this line of inquiry because, we know now, he was unable to achieve the energy density required for commercial competitiveness. The reaction was rate-limited, didn't scale, and required extensive reprocessing of the components over time.

    As always, a gullible enthusiast confusing claims with proven facts. Let me know when a lab independent of Mills runs a machine of his which can be proven to make more output than is input without constant addition of fresh fuel. Let me know when that lab is a reliable one like Sandia or ORNL or CERN or UL or even Google, GE, GM, or SpaceX. So far, everyone who agrees with Mills is obscure, at best and most are paid by Mills.


    Quote

    I'm convinced that Defkalion was at least able to in some cases produce excess heat. However, I doubt they had a system nearly as stable and reliable as some versions of the E-Cat.

    Complete nonsense. If they had had something, they'd be rich and working instead of belly up in ignominious oblivion like they are. They were nothing but arrogant, lying blowhards. And most of us know what Rossi is. Or we should by now.


    Jed wrote:

    Quote

    Cold fusion has been run at over 100 W for three months...

    Link, please?

    Mills, in the CNN piece: "Just from inspection, you can tell it's making enormous amounts of power."
    Bullshit! Reminds of me of Rossi and his moronic stethoscope applied to his non-working kludge.


    Announcer: "CNN first featured Mills in 2008 ... but his fuel cell never made it to market."
    Could that be because the claims were lies (same lies for >25 years) and the thing didn't work?


    Proof is now delayed to 2018. Oh, OK.


    Btw, one apparent fly in the Mills' ointment is cooling. He is generating what average power? 25kW in a sphere a few inches in diameter? And cooling it how? With what looks like a couple of lame copper pipes not in thermal contact with the sphere? And he is extracting 25kW average power with a very small photocell array inside the device? This seems likely to work to anyone? Why? What unknown technologies of all sorts is Mills using?


    Quote

    Jon Soderberg wrote:Mills said at least 100 KW/H up to 150 KW/H of electricity, the leftover heat is part of the pricing. The output can even be higher but the parts can only handle certain temperatures. Watch the whole video all the information is in there somewhere.


    That one puzzles me. What is a KW/H? What does the "H" stand for?

    Just a bit of a history reminder:


    As early as summer of 2011, I and several others were remarking that it was absurd for Rossi to build a ragtag collection of 50+ ecats in order to prove the principle and sell the IP for the technology. We suggested simple testing with fluid flow (mass flow) calorimetry or even simpler, sparging the steam made by a single ecat in a large insulated water bath. I even communicated with Jed by email as to how that could best be done and we agreed that if Rossi agreed, one or both of us could go to Italy to supervise it. Of course, Rossi said no.


    As soon as Levi came out with his liquid cooled experiment, it seemed obvious that this sort of calorimetry could also prove that the ecat really worked. That test is documented here: http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/…cludes-combustion-6421304 . As we noted ad nauseam there was no calibration and no third party supervision. But all of that could have been fixed in less than a few weeks and a few thousand dollars. When I said these things in 2011 (and since), I was wildly abused verbally for it. Now it seems to be generally believed to be true. Rossi has absolutely nothing and the so-called megawatt plants and a one year test were just bizarre smoke screens to keep gullible people in the dark. I am stunned that it worked.


    I would only disagree that a very short test could prove the ecat real. You need enough time to rule out stored energy. In a small volume device, the 18 hour test of Levi's would be enough. But if the source of energy is nuclear, why not run a week or two? Why not reroute the output heat to the input via a heat exchanger and a controller to make the reaction self sustaining? I said all that in 2011. It is still valid today. Rossi was a crook then and he is one now. It still isn't clear what Levi is but either way, it's not savory.

    I believe that a similar summary can be given about cold fusion and LENR for every year since 1990. And I see nothing to suggest this will change soon. Especially not BLP and their razzle dazzle light show.

    Charlie, debunking crap is fun. More importantly, on some occasions, internet debunking can save investors money. IH would have saved a lot of trouble and investor cash had they bothered to read the extensive debunking of Andrea Rossi's claims. Dick Smith saved a million dollars by reading the truth about Defkalion and consulting with some of the authors of the posts. Just because you may not be putting your money where your mouth is doesn't mean others don't. And when they invest in bunk, they get cheated.


    Scams like Steorn, Tilley, Defkalion and Rossi simply waste resources better spent in real research. Personally, I hate that and I also hate seeing scammers profit. Whatever I can reasonably do to prevent scammers' ill gotten gains, I do. And I just generally dislike deception and nonsense.

    Where to start? I am not going to give you a detailed analysis -- Mills' crappola isn't worth the work. First, all of the work is paid for by Mills. Second, it isn't "clean". In the Rowan University work, you can't really tell what the fuel is, how they recycle it, and why it wouldn't be a chemical reaction. In the current demos, they put a humongeous amount of electrical power into a tiny space and get a bright flash. Really? I was short circuiting crap when I was ten years old to make a bright flash. The stuff Mills puts out (and his colleagues) is razzle dazzle which can only impress people who have not been trained in scientific method and who have not spent time in a lab. Let me know when they self sustain. Let me know when someone credible (like a government lab or a major university department) replicates it. Let me know when they provide a proper and clear energy budget of an experiment.


    It's OK if you want to believe that BS, Shane. After all, you were very fond of Defkalion and Rossi, IIRC. Brillouin and BLP are very likely to end the same way, given enough time.

    Quote

    I think the leasing agreement will stipulate that you cannot look inside, and the device will be locked with a digital code to access. Only the maintenance people will be allowed to open it.

    Seriously? You believe that? When has that business model EVER happened and worked? Anything nowadays can be dismantled, Xrayed, frozen and sliced, and reverse engineered. Rossi used the same idiotic claim, remember? And look where he is now. As for Defkalion, Hadjichristos was nothing but an arrogant liar. He never had anything to protect. Self destruct devices for home and industrial products? Give us a break! And basically what Jed said about patents. Patents are excellent protection but they require full disclosure, as it should be. It's not a problem, if, of course, the device works, which Rossi and Defkalion for certain and most probably BLP and Brillouin do not.


    Eric : whether a competing device is covered or not is the subject of extensive law suits. Most people will content themselves with a license. Win win situation.

    Quote

    BE is so frustrating. They have been "right there" for 4 years now. Why have they not broken out yet? By appearances they look legit...both scientifically and as a business, having checked all the blocks like BLP. Having SRI vet their product, and McKubre standing by them...even addressing some congressional staffers, and a congressman or two on Capital Hill, is about as good as it gets in LENR land. Throw in Carl Page as a member of their board, while writing articles praising LENR...well BE, when is it going to happen?


    I suspect "never" is a best answer. All they have are claims. No independent testing by anyone credible. That's always the key when there are grandiose claims. BLP is more complicated because they did a better job of muddying the waters with what *seem* to be acceptable tests... but when you examine the details, they are not. I predict "never" for them as well. Hey, be patient. Mills has only had thirty years to make his case to the scientific community.