Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crawdaddy said:
Dancing David



This betrays a complete lack of any interest in digging for information about these experiments yourself.

The answers to these questions have been so thoroughly talked about with regards to the e-cat observations that if you haven't already seen it then you just aren't paying attention.
Click to expand...
or you are just a blow hard.
This type of post is a good example of the type of question that won't get a detailed response from me. It is so basic and absolutely hashed out elsewhere that restating it here is pointless.
Click to expand...
Show the evidence then.
You may have noticed by now that I find the tone of your posts annoying. This is partly because you often make poorly researched assumptions and then expect me to correct you and with thoroughly researched and proven responses. Which you then don't acknowledge. I find this insulting.
Click to expand...
You show your lack of ability to engage in critical debate.
What I find even more annoying is that the tone of your posts betray an extreme disinterest in actually finding the truth in this matter. Posts like "link one paper that proves cold fusion is real!" are the best examples of this. It sounds exactly like a creationist would say if you replaced cold fusion with evolution.
Click to expand...
Now you are stating a lie and a rather bold one at that, i asked what research paper you liked about LENR and to present it first. But you refuse then as well, it had nothing to do with my tone, it has to do with teh lack of evidence.
From my perspective you seem like a creationist. You seem to be using the same "tactics" they use in order to "win" a debate with me. I wonder what richard dawkins would say to you if you said "show me one paper that proves evolution"
Click to expand...
gee I wonder how many papers are published on nylonase and anti-biotic resistance?
or if you said to Dr. Steven Novella "show me one paper that proves vaccines don't cause autism"?
Click to expand...
Nice moving the goal posts, the burden is on the one making a claim.

there is no evidence i have seen to show that they did an accurate measure of the water input, at 7 kg/hr
I am calling your bluff, you show me how they measured the flow at 7 kg./hr. , I don't think you have source on how they measured it, so you blow hard with rhetoric and puff yourself up and pretend that it is my lack of looking.

Uh huh, I don't think you have anything to show that they measured the flow and so you are just posturing.

Unlike you I do stand by my words, so

You show me that they measured the flow in an accurate fashion, other than the link I provided that it was an estimate. I will do something people who use rhetoric never do. I tender a formal apology to you in thee Forum Community.

I think you are just posing and waving your arms, just as you can't come up with research that supports LENR, I will be very surprised if you furnish evidence of an accurate measurement of 7 kg./hr.

I don't need to compare you to a creationist, you destroy your own credibility by not presenting a citation to support your claim that there was an accurate measurement of the rate of water flow.

You have said it has been hashed out but not citations.

You are emptyhanded.
 
Request

Crawdaddy said:
The input power is clearly shown in the video.

The output power is measured by the technique described by rossi in his calculation.

Do you want me to write out the calculation?

The Krivit video is very light on data. No conclusion can be drawn from it without more information. Dancing David no doubt understands this and so asks rhetorical questions.

The measurement of superheated steam at atmospheric pressure is a well published technique used for high pressure steam quality measurement. The difference in this case is that Rossi claims to generate superheated steam at atmospheric pressure. This is possible if heating of the water vapor occurs after boiling.
Click to expand...

Or if the pressure is lowered from chamber to outlet...

Here is a link to a page that will teach you the how to calculate steam quality by the standard technique. Which is what rossi is using. It took me five seconds to find this information.

http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2003/378.html

The obvious source of error in the experiment is the temperature of the steam and the pressure at the chimney exit. This is very basic stuff. If you need it to be explained to you it is unlikely that you can contribute to a valuable discussion of the rossi results.

If you already understand it then please stop wasting my time. If you care enough you can find several calculations of possible errors in the rossi temperature and pressure measurements. I find none of them explain away the result as simple error.

I am not here to lead you by the nose to data and teach you how to do calculations. If you want to challenge the Rossi result on the basis of measured values and quantitative calculations then you will have to find and present data on your own.
Click to expand...

Did Rossi actually measure electrical power in, water flow rate in, water temp, ambient pressure (at the test location, as the pressure in a building can be different from that outside), and outlet temp using instruments of stated accuracy at the time of the test and use those in his calculation, and NONE of them were assumed from previous measurements?

Can you kindly (for those among us who cannot find it ourselves :)), point (link) to a specific location where ALL of these are answered for any single test and documented with the error budget for each? How about would you please clip a quote and pasting it for us (since you seem to be intimately familiar with all this, and could find it at a moments notice), instead of us having to exhaustively search through all the diverse references to collect them?

Is there actually a single source of all this data on any given test, with absolutely no assumptions or "estimations" having been made? If not, why?

I eagerly await your demonstration and presentation of this data.:)

Cheers,

Dave
 
Last edited:
Horatius

Looks to me like he'd link you to one.

Or two
Click to expand...

And If I was a nutjjob like Jenny McCarthy I would say that the first link only talks about thimerosal and not the other components of the vaccine or the special properties of a certain mixture of different vaccine given at a certain time of day! Therefore that link does not prove that vaccines don't cause autism!

Anyone interested in the pursuit of knowledge by a science based approach knows that no one experiment can definitively prove anything! All you can show is that under certain controlled conditions you get a result. A massive body of evidence must be reported and understood before you can be reasonably certain of anything in a scientific context.

HoverBoarder

Sure, but the posters on those threads have still overwhelmingly concluded that the Rossi claims are faked.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of these threads... The person quoted in the post you linked was crawdaddy (that guy is a douche)!

These results are very interesting but are by no means conclusive or overwhelming at their present level of sophistication. I am following them with great interest.

The discussion you linked to is however an excellent example rational skepticism at it's best. The same cannot be said for this thread.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
But steam is only entering the superheater when the throttle valve is open so max temp and pressure of steam is only produced after the throttle valve.
Click to expand...

Not all steam engines are superheated, and in particular I have never seen a superheater in anything smaller than 15" gauge.

I was referring to the temperature/pressure inside the boiler, anyway, and not the steam chest pressure/temperature.
 
CaveDave said:
...

Or if the pressure is lowered from chamber to outlet...

...
Click to expand...

You need VERY hot steam to run through a pressure-reducer like a throttle valve and still remain dry steam - because pressure reducers drop temperature, and in fact can be used to control temperature of process steam.

This is one reason superheaters are downstream from the throttle
 
Dancing David

I think you are just posing and waving your arms, just as you can't come up with research that supports LENR, I will be very surprised if you furnish evidence of an accurate measurement of 7 kg./hr.
Click to expand...

As anyone with a background in science and an interest in the e-cat knows an LMI P18 model pump was used in the steam generating tests to date.

http://lmipumps.org/lmi-series-p-metering-pumps/

As you continue to harp on the measurement of the flow rate you are obviously not familiar with this style of pump which displace a constant volume per stroke of a piston. If you listen carefully to the videos you can hear each pulse of liquid as the pump strokes at a constant rate.

These types of pumps are ubiquitous in experiments that require a precisely measured volume of liquid to be pumped reliably and a short perusal of the manual for the pump:

http://www.lmi-pumps.com/Manuals/157983_1615n.pdf

should convince you that the manufacturer recommended calibration is similar to that performed by rossi.

a further reading of the manual will convince you that the back pressure does not affect the flow rate of this pump unless the back pressure approaches 80PSI or around 6 atmospheres of pressure and even then the change would be immediately apparent to any observer because the pump would stall and the sound of the stoke pattern would change or cease.

It would be almost impossible to accidentally mis-measure the flow rate of this pump.

The measurement is further confirmed in several of the experiments by weighing the reservoir before and and after the experiment!

These types of pumps make a distinctive noise that is as regular as clockwork and the noise is exactly the same on every pump stroke. Even if rossi were a fraudster it would be extremely difficult to change the flow rate of this pump without immediately tipping you hand to any observer.

I hope you find this explanation as boring as I found it to write.

The next time you have a question about something don't accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about before you do a bit of research yourself.
 
Last edited:
Crawdaddy said:
These types of pumps make a distinctive noise that is as regular as clockwork and the noise is exactly the same on every pump stroke. Even if rossi were a fraudster it would be extremely difficult to change the flow rate of this pump without immediately tipping you hand to any observer.
Click to expand...

Hm. So if one imitate the noise of the pump a way or anotehr, you can fool an observer :D ?
 
Crawdaddy said:
Horatius

And If I was a nutjjob like Jenny McCarthy I would say that the first link only talks about thimerosal and not the other components of the vaccine or the special properties of a certain mixture of different vaccine given at a certain time of day! Therefore that link does not prove that vaccines don't cause autism!
Click to expand...



You know who moves goal posts after one of their claims has been shown to be ********, rather than simply admitting they were ********ting?


Creationists.
 
Horatius

You know who moves goal posts after one of their claims has been shown to be ********, rather than simply admitting they were ********ting?


Creationists.
Click to expand...

exactly my point. Thank you for making it.
 
Crawdaddy said:
It would be almost impossible to accidentally mis-measure the flow rate of this pump.
Click to expand...

A little work on the check valves and maybe an orifice and the pump could be tweaked for reduced output. The pump is designed to be precise, not fraud-proof. Anyway, the water could be filling up a table leg.
 
Thanks for the response, I do not do this to be annoying but to learn, I am spending most of my study time on learning to remove malware currently.

Crawdaddy said:
Dancing David



As anyone with a background in science and an interest in the e-cat knows an LMI P18 model pump was used in the steam generating tests to date.

http://lmipumps.org/lmi-series-p-metering-pumps/
Click to expand...
That is better but not adequate.
As you continue to harp on the measurement of the flow rate you are obviously not familiar with this style of pump which displace a constant volume per stroke of a piston. If you listen carefully to the videos you can hear each pulse of liquid as the pump strokes at a constant rate.
Click to expand...
I am familiar to some extent, but again, the data is not offered, so where is the source that says what settings they used?

Oh, I forgot we just take them a face value, because they are special.

Rossi claims 7 kg / hr, so what setting was used on the pump and who calibrated it?

Oh, I know those annoying details that just aren't provided.
These types of pumps are ubiquitous in experiments that require a precisely measured volume of liquid to be pumped reliably and a short perusal of the manual for the pump:

http://www.lmi-pumps.com/Manuals/157983_1615n.pdf

should convince you that the manufacturer recommended calibration is similar to that performed by rossi.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen anything about the calibration by Rossi, so might as well say that Bigfoot Did IT and is Never Wrong.
a further reading of the manual will convince you that the back pressure does not affect the flow rate of this pump unless the back pressure approaches 80PSI or around 6 atmospheres of pressure and even then the change would be immediately apparent to any observer because the pump would stall and the sound of the stoke pattern would change or cease.
Click to expand...
And some of the threads on Polywell discuss that the stroke rate does not sound right as well.

So data, you know that pesky thing?

how was it calibrated? By whom, in what setting that produced 7 kg / hr.
It would be almost impossible to accidentally mis-measure the flow rate of this pump.
Click to expand...
Sure uhuh, more man behind the curtain.

So who did the calibration for the 7 kg / hr ?
The measurement is further confirmed in several of the experiments by weighing the reservoir before and and after the experiment!
Click to expand...
Ah yes, but did they do that for the 7 kg/hr, had they and if you had provided some evidence of that, then your apology would already have been posted.

So did they measure by weight or volume the rate of 7 kg/hr?
These types of pumps make a distinctive noise that is as regular as clockwork and the noise is exactly the same on every pump stroke. Even if rossi were a fraudster it would be extremely difficult to change the flow rate of this pump without immediately tipping you hand to any observer.
Click to expand...
Hmm, some of the Polywell threads and posts say just that, that the volume can not be as stated.
I hope you find this explanation as boring as I found it to write.

The next time you have a question about something don't accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about before you do a bit of research yourself.
Click to expand...

So you still don't know what data and evidence are?

I am shocked.

My accusation is that you did not provide evidence of the flow rate being 7 kg/hr.

Guess what, that is not an accusation, it is fact.

You still haven't. I do not accuse, I stated that the evidence had not been presented to justify an accurate measurement. It is closer but still not there.

Usually when people when cite research they can go right to the source and quote it. I think Rossi is not publishing his results very well, that is why.

Why is that? Where is his data?

I certainly don't think that is your fault, but Rossi seems to not want things stated clearly.

So maybe just cite the source and I won’t annoy you any more.
 
BenBurch said:
You need VERY hot steam to run through a pressure-reducer like a throttle valve and still remain dry steam - because pressure reducers drop temperature, and in fact can be used to control temperature of process steam.

This is one reason superheaters are downstream from the throttle
Click to expand...

I was meaning that if the pipe bore was giving a small delta P along its length - almost certain for all but very large diameter or very short pipes, or very low flows - what was "wet" steam inside the generator (at a slightly higher press.) would become saturated or slightly superheated at a point with a slightly reduced pressure, before the excess heat could dissipate. N'est-ce pas?

Cheers,

Dave



 
Crawdaddy said:
Dancing David



As anyone with a background in science and an interest in the e-cat knows an LMI P18 model pump was used in the steam generating tests to date.

http://lmipumps.org/lmi-series-p-metering-pumps/

As you continue to harp on the measurement of the flow rate you are obviously not familiar with this style of pump which displace a constant volume per stroke of a piston. If you listen carefully to the videos you can hear each pulse of liquid as the pump strokes at a constant rate.

These types of pumps are ubiquitous in experiments that require a precisely measured volume of liquid to be pumped reliably and a short perusal of the manual for the pump:

http://www.lmi-pumps.com/Manuals/157983_1615n.pdf

should convince you that the manufacturer recommended calibration is similar to that performed by rossi.

a further reading of the manual will convince you that the back pressure does not affect the flow rate of this pump unless the back pressure approaches 80PSI or around 6 atmospheres of pressure and even then the change would be immediately apparent to any observer because the pump would stall and the sound of the stoke pattern would change or cease.

It would be almost impossible to accidentally mis-measure the flow rate of this pump.

The measurement is further confirmed in several of the experiments by weighing the reservoir before and and after the experiment!

These types of pumps make a distinctive noise that is as regular as clockwork and the noise is exactly the same on every pump stroke. Even if rossi were a fraudster it would be extremely difficult to change the flow rate of this pump without immediately tipping you hand to any observer.

I hope you find this explanation as boring as I found it to write.

The next time you have a question about something don't accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about before you do a bit of research yourself.
Click to expand...

While the above is true, it is not complete.:)

I have used this brand and style of pump in the past, over several years.

These pumps use variable pulse rate and variable stroke length to control output.
ETA: IIRC, there are some combinations of speed and stroke that are not as reliable (flow-rate wise) because of filling time and stroke length interaction. Also any air (compressible medium) that is not purged from the chamber will play hob with the flow.

The speed (pulse/min.) is controlled by a pot with a small knob on the apron of the base. The volume (stroke length) is controlled by a mechanical threaded shaft (screw) acting as a stop for the solenoid armature. This is operated by a large knob on the rear (opposite of the hydraulic head) face of the cylindrical body. the knob is large (2-3" dia.) and can easily be knocked off setting by simply "brushing" against it in passing. These have a marked shock that occurs on each stroke, and this can, under certain conditions, cause a "self adjusting" to occur (this happened to me, and I thought someone was tampering, until I caught it in the act) unless the knob is locked (IIRC, there is a built in lock, but it is non-obvious and requires a hex wrench to set).

IOW, the fact that the stroke rate change would be obvious does not prevent tampering or accident from having altered the output.

Cheers,

Dave
 
Last edited:
Has anyone noticed this curiosity in the Defkalion marketing publicity produced for the June 23 conference? http://www.defkalion-energy.com/White Paper_DGT.pdf (page 7).

They are going to sell the right to manufacture the Hyperion components – not the components themselves - which are to be be bolted on to the e-cat “kernel” to be manufactured supposedly in the near future.

They will also sell “transfer of knowledge” whatever that may be. And once customers have “bought” all this, Defkalion will deign to “supply ... on generated demand” the e-cat on a plug and play basis to these lucky folks.

Can some lawyer tell us all why the other stuff is to be “sold”, while the only interesting part of the deal – the magic box – is to be “supplied”? Is this significant?

Be it noted that Edison sold phonographs, and Ford sold cars. Defkalion sells licenses to make things that’ll be useless without the magic box, and I’m pretty sure we’ll still be waiting for "generated demand" to trigger the "supply" of these some time from now.

Or am I just being overly suspicious?
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
Or am I just being overly suspicious?
Click to expand...

No you are not. The same way Steorn organized its "proposed" sales.

I hink they simply want to make a run around some consumer protection law and fraud stopping agency, by "giving" or "supplying" the part for which any claim could land them in hot water if the claim can't be checked (eCat) while making their lard on the rest. As Nathan said, it also allow them a ncie escape way.

This stinked of scam before, now the smells is so solid you can butt your head against it.
 
BenBurch said:
Not all steam engines are superheated, and in particular I have never seen a superheater in anything smaller than 15" gauge.

I was referring to the temperature/pressure inside the boiler, anyway, and not the steam chest pressure/temperature.
Click to expand...

A lot of Engineering models are for example even this little Saddle Tank has one
http://www.ptmachining.co.uk/sadletnk.htm

and a 5" gauge 'Brittania' builr from a 'semi kit'

I have seen Gauge 1 locomotives with Superheaters.

I don't know if they actualy increase the efficiency be a lot but they certainly act as steam dryers.

Sorry for the derail
 
Aepervius, thanks.

Nathan

Sometimes I wonder if I'm being ignored:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...47#post7309747
Click to expand...
Nathan, you're not being ignored, and my post above should have referred to your contribution. Sorry.

This time I was looking specifically at the distinction between "sale" and "supply" and the condition of "generated demand" attached to the latter, which I hadn't noticed before, not solely at the two-tier marketing, which your earlier post plausibly accounted for. Is this distinction made by Defkalion intentional and significant?

Do "suplyees" have fewer rights than purchasers in relation to defective or undelivered products? That was my question, basically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom