Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[maryyugo]

New article by Krivit but mostly behind pay wall. Basically says that Kullander tested the ecat independently, it didn't work and he failed to publish that. I didn't read the for pay part. Yet.

news.newenergytimes.net/2013/06/04/more-ethics-questions-uppsala-university-hides-failed-e-cat-test/

 

[Craig B]

New article by Krivit but mostly behind pay wall. Basically says that Kullander tested the ecat independently, it didn't work and he failed to publish that. I didn't read the for pay part. Yet.

news.newenergytimes.net/2013/06/04/more-ethics-questions-uppsala-university-hides-failed-e-cat-test/

It's a pity Krivit did that pay wall thing.

 

[Horatius]

Thank you for that. Here's another interesting datum. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/3514storms.shtml Which published the paper.

Well, here's another problem:


Naturwissenschaften

Naturwissenschaften, The Science of Nature is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Springer Science+Business Media covering all aspects of the natural sciences relating to questions of biological significance.

Naturwissenschaften


Why are they publishing this paper is a journal related to biological sciences?

 

[leonAzul]

It is a bit worst than that, he initially started with normal Ni and normal Cu "ashes", but once pointed to him that it was impossible , some (was it him or his proponent can't recall) tried to pretend that the reaction had different % so that in the end you get the naturally isotopic copper. Nowadays the pretension is just that you need to get pure 62Ni apparently (did not read it directly myself) which is funny considering Rossi always used normal Ni previously. Well : whatever.

This is, indeed, amusing.

Several years ago, when it first came to my attention, I was curious about the natural ratio of Ni to Cu in ore. I have lost the links to it, for the moment, but what I discovered is that the result that Rossi claims for his process is consistent with Ni to Cu ratio of many ores.

I invite those who have better knowledge to correct me.

 

[Aepervius]

Well, here's another problem:


Naturwissenschaften




Naturwissenschaften


Why are they publishing this paper is a journal related to biological sciences?

That would surprise me since naturwissenschaften covers everything including physic. You would translate "science" as well as natural science into Naturwissenschaften. ETA: My old department at the university (physic) was covered under the bigger naturwissenschaften department. So I went to check :

http://link.springer.com/journal/114

Naturwissenschaften - The Science of Nature - is Springer's flagship multidisciplinary science journal covering all aspect of the natural sciences. The journal is dedicated to the fast publication of high-quality research covering the whole range of the biological, chemical, geological, and physical sciences.

It publish everything. A bit like "nature".

 

[henryco]

new version

Well, there is now a new version of the article (june 7) with the appendix explaining that the input was well checked
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

"As far as measurements of current are concerned, it was ascertained that no current was present
in the third phase, and that, for the other two phases, the waveform harmonics spectrum, which
appeared to be the one normally associated with a TRIAC regulator, was contained within the
interval measurable by the instrument"

someone has a better idea here or do we have to admit that we now have four additional scientists involved in the scam after the dozens of engineers from defkalion ?
Is there any other example in the history of science of a contagious scam ?!

Actually i would be glad to debate on the subject as a physicist but the problem is that for each message i would post here i expect ten fanatic posts
against what i would say and also against me by the way...so that's not very encouraging. on the other hand it would be the same story for someone criticizing Rossi in a forum of Rossi's fans. It's a pity !!

Indeed my interest is in a theory to explain LENR phenomena and i would be glad to publicly discuss this with one serious scientist convinced that LENR is absolutely unthinkable so that there is no other possible explanation except scam for all what Rossi says or will say in the future...

it's so sad...

 

[Aepervius]

Note that they say nothing about the DC objection , or the fact that the instrument cannot reliably measure anything below 40 hz and above 65 Hz. Or even the fact that they could not even look at a proper dummy, or anything, or why they used such an indirect way to measure temperature, instead of thermocouples, or that they did not really measure the output waves with an oscillo.

someone has a better idea here or do we have to admit that we now have four additional scientists involved in the scam after the dozens of engineers from defkalion ?
Is there any other example in the history of science of a contagious scam ?!

BTW, most of us think they were more probably either simply incompetent or bambaloozed by Rossi. Not that they are "in" it.

Indeed my interest is in a theory to explain LENR phenomena

Rossi nowadays seems to pretend it is not LENR and there are no nuclear reaction.
There has been no gamma radiation measured near the gizmo. The "ashes" in copper are never provided for analyzis.

All i can say is, if you are so much interested into science, then you will perfectly understand that it stinks to the sky high for many reason.

 

[Kid Eager]

Henryco,
I think you're missing the point. The objection is the alleged experiment. I would have no trouble accepting the findings of an independent controlled test, but we are yet to have one. It doesn't matter that the scientists were independent, as the experimental setup was not (according to the setup as described in the article). The calorimetry alone would cause me considerable concerns

If it turns out that the independent experiment throws up findings not supported by conventional theories, then we examine the unconventional.

 

[henryco]

Henryco,
I think you're missing the point. The objection is the alleged experiment. I would have no trouble accepting the findings of an independent controlled test, but we are yet to have one. It doesn't matter that the scientists were independent, as the experimental setup was not (according to the setup as described in the article). The calorimetry alone would cause me considerable concerns

If it turns out that the independent experiment throws up findings not supported by conventional theories, then we examine the unconventional.

Yes i would support an unconventional theory, i have been supported one for years that would produce the heat without any nuclear processes involved but an extra interaction involving field discontinuities...

The test cannot be independent simply because the Rossi says that he has industrial secrets involved and dont forget that apparantly Defkalion succeeded to learn quite much about this secret without Rossi noticing, as DEfkalion boss seems to have admitted some time ago. So we can imagine why Rossi doesnt want anybody to be given the possibility to access the content of the reactor for instance.

But the question is : is it possible to get a reliable result regarding the presence or absence of new physics inside the black box without having access to the inside of the black box? and i think the answer is of course yes.
i have no concern regarding the calorimetry : the method they have chosen is the best one given the Rossi rules they had to strictly follow...

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Note that they say nothing about the DC objection , or the fact that the instrument cannot reliably measure anything below 40 hz and above 65 Hz.

A point of disagreement. The 45 - 65 Hz range only means that it can be used to measure 50 or 60 Hz power. The claim to measure harmonics clearly indicates that it is claimed to detect much higher frequencies, and there is no obvious reason to doubt them.

 

[Horatius]

i have no concern regarding the calorimetry : the method they have chosen is the best one given the Rossi rules they had to strictly follow...

This really doesn't cause you any concerns?

 

[henryco]

Note that they say nothing about the DC objection , or the fact that the instrument cannot reliably measure anything below 40 hz and above 65 Hz. Or even the fact that they could not even look at a proper dummy, or anything, or why they used such an indirect way to measure temperature, instead of thermocouples, or that they did not really measure the output waves with an oscillo.

!?
The PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer they used in the march test sees everything below 40 Hz and of course any DC contribution and also the power spectrum shows that the power at high frequencies decreases very fast. This instrument can also be used as an oscillo and actually they show the signal in the appendix...

 

[henryco]

This really doesn't cause you any concerns?

well, after reading the article i didnt detect the obvious calorimetry bug ... but if you found it , please tell me where you already discussed that ...thank you ... as anybody i have to make up my mind on this ...

 

[Dancing David]

The test cannot be independent simply because the Rossi says that he has industrial secrets involved.

Sorry power in and still water bath measurements are not industrial secrets, everything Rossi does would not require anything else, place the device in the still water bath, have someone else monitors the power in with standard electrical engineering.

No industrial secrets ex[posed.

What a bizarre false dichotomy you set up.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Sorry

 

[Aepervius]

!?
The PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer they used in the march test sees everything below 40 Hz and of course any DC contribution and also the power spectrum shows that the power at high frequencies decreases very fast. This instrument can also be used as an oscillo and actually they show the signal in the appendix...

The clamp, as far as I understood, do not, and DC bias are removed in the settings of the PCE-830 settings involved (although that one I got from somebody else as it goes beyond my understanding on clamp/PCI characteristic).

Furthermore the "dummy" was not done in the same conditions (not the same input signal).

In fact, a real dummy would have to have first used the same tube, but filled with another gas not supposed to react, without changing anything else , neither signals, neither measurement, neither tube, neither special sauce/ingredient ni powder inside. ETA: and this would have been done very easily : open the tube, release H gas, close the tube.

Calorimetry as said above/below is shaky.

There are so many objection in this "experiment" it is not funny.

And try as you might, the experience was already set up and working when they came.
Independent this is not.

Also ever heard of NDA ? And ever heard of Patent ?

Also why in the heck a reaction *starting* with heat and producing more heat than it was provided to begin with, with a factor said to be 3 to 6, would , in absence of active cooling, *stop* quasi immediately ? Why indeed ? The center of the tube should be much hotter than the place where the resistance are, and the things is cooling by natural convection/conduction/radiation. You should need *one* single cycle of heating, then the "reaction" whatever that is starts and never stops. After that the heating is unnecessary , because heat will go from hot (center where reaction take place) to cold (outside). It makes no sense whatsoever to have the reaction stop when heat is stopped, when the reaction itself is providing MORE than it receive to begin with. And there is no reactant (initially hydrogen) input gas. So basically they are saying that all the H ever used was the one put inside to begin with, and nothing escaped and the tube was super sealed.
or the magic machine is not using H anymore ?

And i would like to see Rossi's order and bills for pure Ni 62. Just to make sure, you know . I am sure cambridge labs or any other outfit can then confirm the bill/order. ETA: and then he can send the isotopically pure Cu and Ni mix ashes without betraying industrial secret to isotopic analyzis. Oh wait no he did not.

 

[tsig]

Note that they say nothing about the DC objection , or the fact that the instrument cannot reliably measure anything below 40 hz and above 65 Hz. Or even the fact that they could not even look at a proper dummy, or anything, or why they used such an indirect way to measure temperature, instead of thermocouples, or that they did not really measure the output waves with an oscillo.



BTW, most of us think they were more probably either simply incompetent or bambaloozed by Rossi. Not that they are "in" it.



Rossi nowadays seems to pretend it is not LENR and there are no nuclear reaction.
There has been no gamma radiation measured near the gizmo. The "ashes" in copper are never provided for analyzis.

All i can say is, if you are so much interested into science, then you will perfectly understand that it stinks to the sky high for many reason.

For one thing using an instrument designed to work on pure AC to measure the chopped AC you get from a Triac is an error right from the start.

This statement:

They were fed by
a TRIAC power regulator d
e
vice
which interrupted each phase periodi
cally, in
order to modulate power input with an indu
s
trial
trade secret waveform.

is a lie, there's nothing secret about the output wave form of a Triac, it's just a chopped version of the AC input, I studied them in school and have looked at them many times with an O'scope.

The procedure is designed to deceive.

(The formatting is an artifact of the copy & paste)

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

there's nothing secret about the output wave form of a Triac, it's just a chopped version of the AC input, I studied them in school and have looked at them many times with an O'scope.

The procedure is designed to deceive.

(The formatting is an artifact of the copy & paste)

Not only is there no trade secret, the appendix to the report shows the waveform.

Secret?

 

[Mister Earl]

The excuse of "trade secrets" is a particularly poor one. Patent protection covers that sort of thing, does it not?

 

[ChumpusRex]

The clamp, as far as I understood, do not, and DC bias are removed in the settings of the PCE-830 settings involved (although that one I got from somebody else as it goes beyond my understanding on clamp/PCI characteristic).

A DC bias current (e.g. from half-wave rectification) cannot carry an energy in an AC supply. In a 50 Hz supply, on the 50Hz component of the current can carry any power; any other frequency, simply heats wires, but doesn't transfer any power to the load.

However, DC bias currents can disturb the performance of current clamps. It depends on the design of the clamp and the magnitude of the current. The problem of DC bias causing AC measurement errors is worst in permanently installed current transformers (e.g. used for industrial tariff metering), because the high precision CTs avoid the use of air gaps in the magnetic circuit, leaving them vulnerable to saturation by DC bias currents, and can lead to severe under reading of 50% or more. Clamps tend to be better, due to the presence of air gaps in the transformer core, but again, it is highly dependent on DC current magnitude. For correct measurement of AC current in the presence of a DC bias, a special type of clamp, called a "zero-flux hall effect" sensor is required. This is a sophisticated type of actively-controlled electronic sensor, which would not normally be supplied with equipment designed for mains voltages (but may be specified when large, high voltage DC currents must be measured - e.g. hybrid vehicle battery monitoring). I cannot find any information about the design of the PCE 830 current clamps. They may be CT based, although PCE do appear to offer a Rogowski coil (flexible clamp) option (but RC sensors also have no DC sensitivity).

The other issue with their description of the power monitoring, is the waveforms and power draw. They are not compatible with the measurements of power shown during testing of the e-cat.

The waveforms shown in the photographs in the v3 of the paper show a total load of 150W approx. During e-cat testing, the load was reported as 900W, or 360W for the initial test. In previous discussion, the authors have stated that the power factor of the e-cat was 0.5. The waveforms shown, are those of a TRIAC phase angle controller set to 150 degrees of phase delay. Such a waveform has a power factor of 0.2, giving a total power transfer on each phase of (229 V * 1.47 A * 0.2) = approx 75W. The waveforms shown in the paper, are therefore not representative of the waveforms used during operation of the e-cat, nor even of the dummy test.