Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Significant fusion at room temperatures and low pressure is not predicted by any mainstream theory (sans exotic particles). When there are many potentially uncontrolled variables such as electric wires, hydrogen gas, and reactive materials I find it surprising at the number of credulous believers. If the E-Cat pans out, I'll be dancing in the streets, but I am not shopping for dancing shoes at the moment.
 
ben m said:
My goodness. I was expecting incompetence, but this is incompetence beyond my expectations.

The only power-in instrumentation is a "WATTS UP" power meter, a sort of cheap consumer grade device you'd buy at Home Depot when you're doing a home energy audit. It can't sample faster than once per second. There's no voltmeter. No ammeter. No oscilloscope. No true-power-measuring eddy current meter.

The H2 input was not monitored at all. No flowmeter, no bottle scale. Nothing. They report looking at the pressure gauge---by which they mean the coarse dial gauge on the high-pressure bottle---and seeing no change.

The only power-out instrumentation is a cup of water (collecting "steam") and, at the end of a long cool pipe, a relative humidity probe which they mistake for a "steam dryness" probe. (A steam dryness probe wouldn't do anything in that position even if you had one.)

And the data is presented primarily in the form of digital photos of a computer screen with graphs on it. What the heck?

So, yeah, I'll tell you exactly what is going on. They pumped 1kW of electric power into their thingamabob. The unmetered hydrogen did some PV work too, and probably some chemistry, but that's not the big problem. Their ordinary heat sources made some water boil. The boiling water contains a mix of steam and ordinary droplets---the steam takes energy to make, the droplets basically don't. This cloud ran down their pipe, condensing all the way, trickled past past their indifferent "steam quality probe". They then imagine that all of the water had been boiled, and calculate the energy required. Unsurprisingly, this number is much greater than the electric power consumed.
Click to expand...

Here is one post discussing the power measure used in prior tests, by somone who does know and is familiar with them, in the recent test I believe they used a form of amp meter.

But the main concern is that the device actualy has the sensitivity to measure certain events.
 
Jimmy42 said:
When a "skeptic" tests a miracle device, don't they assume, (but maybe don't reveal their assumption) that the device is outright fraud and the builder has gone to great lengths to deceive the tester?
Click to expand...

No, the assumption behind skepticism (and it is, or should be, right up front) is that the miracle device might be a fraud.
 
Crawdaddy said:
More tests from the former chairman of the swedish skeptics society and the president of the physics society that decides the nobel prize....
Click to expand...

It looks like they recognized the need to take into account the
water flow argument here.

They mention:
"Total water-flow input was measured by weighing"
And they use weighed water reservoirs before and after the
test.
This is certainly an improvement and I assume my arguments
helped to make this improvement.

Interesting thing is that the more accurate the measurements
become, the less the power of the device gets and shorter
the duration of the test gets.
In this test it was only
"2.3 and 2.6 kW" and duration of 2 hrs (previous report
was 4.5kW and 6 hrs).

It is very strange that power has decreased, while
water-flow is lower. The opposite should be true,
because lower water-flow should cause higher temperature
in the reactor and correspondingly higher reaction rate.
It is almost a confirmation of my previous assertion
that water-flow was not constant (and so
power calculation was wrong), and now with more
accurate measurement we do see reduced power.

That leaves us with only "5.6 and 6.9 kWh" over
the duration of the test which is again not that far
from what NiMH battery thermal self-discharge
can provide assuming it is hidden in the so-called
"lead shielding".
Given 300Wh/L for NiMH battery, we only need 20L and volume
and 7 kG weight to get this amount of energy, and if you observe the "wrapped
up" version of the device, it is in that order of volume
and certainly much larger weight.

It looks like the external measurements have again constrained
the energy of the device to the level accessible by chemical
sources (for given temperature range it could be NiMH battery heat-induced self
discharge with onset at about 60C).

The statement:
"As Professor Sven Kullander and Associate Professor Hanno Essén noted
previously, the energy released is greater than can be generated by a chemical
reaction in the reactor, which has an estimated volume of 50 cubic centimeters."
...would be correct for 50 cubic centimeters. But that would not
take into account the volume and weight taken by the so called "lead shielding".
Their analysis is based on the "naked" device they could see, but not on the
actual "wrapped and shielded" device that was used in the test.

Correct analysis should include the entire black box volume and mass,
where the black-box is the actual device under test.

Regards,
Yevgen
 
unclep2k said:
So are you guys convinced heavier than air flight is possible yet?
Click to expand...

Why is that related to cold fusion?

I see birds fly all the time, and paper airplanes. I have even gone down to the areodrome and watched the areoplanes take off and land.

theer was evidence of heavier and air flight before the Wright brothers gas engine powered flight, there is no good evidence of cold fusion.

Please skip mentioning Gallileo and Einstein...
 
As long as they are measuring "flow rate" this is worthless.

Do it in a fixed-volume insulated water bath (as I described) and then we are talking.

Physicists just have no real experience with calorimetry, it seems.
 
Jimmy42 said:
When a "skeptic" tests a miracle device, don't they assume, (but maybe don't reveal their assumption) that the device is outright fraud and the builder has gone to great lengths to deceive the tester? The main method to avoid being deceived is to replicate the device / experiment yourself under lock and key. If you do not replicate the experiment / device, you might as well take the inventor's word for his success (and send him three blank cheques).
Click to expand...
Jimmy42, I'm not sure what definition of skeptic you are using, or why it needs quotes. I simply use the word to mean someone who uses critical thinking to exampine a proposition.

Replication is the method science uses to prove the effect simply exists. Science also requires falsifiability to show the effect might be caused by the purported inputs. A way to do that is to eliminate other possible explanations, which could include fraud. Failure to give enough information to permit replication or a detailed analysis is a bad sign when claiming to be doing science.


CT
 
It wouldn't matter if I wrote a book. Most of you guys wouldn't believe in it if you were boiling in the water it was heating. I don't have any inside info on rossi's invention. I am becoming more convinced daily it is for real. We are just going to have to wait and see. Quite the scam if it is one. He has a respected physicist, Focard, as a partner. Walks into the physics department of a major university to demonstrate it. Leaves it with the university to study and returns to the US. Hires the University of Bologna to study the device for an additional year. Has several impartial scientists attend demonstrations and measure input and output with their equipment. Gutsy guy he is.
 
uncle2pk - he may believe it is real. Without replication and publication, there is insufficient information to say something new has been discovered. The more radical the claim, the more evidence it requires. Right now there is niether replication nor peer-reviewed publication.

CT
 
I really don't have much more to say. We are just going to have to wait and see. Remember Rossi is an inventor not a physicist. He didn't even want to do the university demo. It was Focadi's idea. Rossi wants the marketplace to be the judge. There is no accepted lenr theory. It is considered a rogue science, and it is very difficult to get lenr research published in scientific journals.
 
unclep2k - I agree it is a wait and see situation.

It does not need to be rogue science. Call it LENR, call it cold fusion, or don't call it anything besides a new method for power generation. As Horatius, et al, have pointed out, his patents would be safe. Others have pointed out large opportunities to improve the measurements to gather better evidence. Until better info comes out, we all wait and speculate. I leave it to those better versed in physics and engineering to analyze the details of what little is available.

CT
 
CriticalThanking said:
Others have pointed out large opportunities to improve the measurements to gather better evidence.
Click to expand...



And this is the biggest strike against all these "LENR" "Cold fusion" claims. We've spent twenty years trying to get these guys to do proper experiments, and they still persist in giving us these stupid dog-and-pony shows that demonstrate absolutely nothing.


If I thought I had a new power source that would revolutionize energy production throughout the world, I wouldn't spend twenty years ignoring every bit of advice ever given me on how to demonstrate my discovery.
 
If Rossi's device works, it won't matter a bit that he didn't play by your rules. If it works, it will sell. If it works it will change the world. If he's a fraud, it's still a pretty good story. Nice visiting with you guys. Good nite.
 
unclep2k said:
If Rossi's device works, it won't matter a bit that he didn't play by your rules. If it works, it will sell. If it works it will change the world. If he's a fraud, it's still a pretty good story. Nice visiting with you guys. Good nite.
Click to expand...

"If Rossi's device works" is the question, isn't it? "works" as in "puts out lots of heat for long periods of time"? Wouldn't it be nice to find out? Scientists and engineers have ways of determining accurately how much heat a device puts out. That's central to the question of whether the device works, as you say---it is not some obscure dogmatic point of nuclear theory.

Yet Rossi seems not to use accurate heat measurements, only inaccurate ones. Funny. Can you think of another inventor with that attitude? I can't.
 
unclep2k said:
So are you guys convinced heavier than air flight is possible yet?
Click to expand...

Yiou realize that the lord kelvin quote was transformed and taken out of context by whole generation of crackpot, right ?

The original quote was more akin to "controlled powered flight will be impossible" the impossible was not on flight, Kelvin was not an idiot and saw birds, Montgolfier, and glider. The impossible was refering about "controlled powered" which was actually an engineering problem, outside his competence. Case in point, the explosion engine was invented later, and without that invention the wright brother would be one of those 100's of guy with wacky idea, and gliding from a cliff side over a few hundred meter. The explosion engine was the deal breaker !
 
Last edited:
unclep2k said:
If Rossi's device works, it won't matter a bit that he didn't play by your rules. If it works, it will sell. If it works it will change the world. If he's a fraud, it's still a pretty good story. Nice visiting with you guys. Good nite.
Click to expand...

"Not playing by the rule" is usually an excellent indication that somebody don't have what they really claim to have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom