10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[Crawdaddy]

Every well done experiment has been negative, the only “positive” experiments have been poorly done and poorly instrumented. To me, that suggests a pattern that is consistent with the positive experiments being due to error and artifact.



Posted by: daedalus2u | December 8, 2011 4:19 PM

I wonder what "well done" experiments he is talking about. I have never seen such a report. Perhaps you can link one.

This argument boils down to arguing that the CF experimenters have no idea how to do calorimetry. A much more authoritative figure than deadalus2u disagrees. I trust the opinion of Robert Duncan much more than some guy on the net.

[Skipjack]

Except in their forum they explain exactly what they mean by independent tests. As quoted by Kahuna on page 210.... Do try to keep up.

Well, NBF and their PDF say something different. I have not read their forum, though. So maybe they have changed their plans.

[Kahuna]

All this bickering is a waste of time.

If Defkalion can deliver the goods (and we will hopefully know within a couple of months), then obviously Rossi stumbled onto something despite what people think, justified or not, about his past.

If the Defkalion independent tests fizzle, then so too does this whole story, in my opinion.

Why spend effort arguing about fake degrees when all will hopefully be settled soon enough.

Frankly, at this stage I don't care too much about who did what, I just pray that this new energy source is valid. You all should too, because the world surely needs it.

Well said! Defkalion is clearly the next shoe to drop. There may be some modest delays, but I don't see any major issues with their published test guidelines which have been further clarified on their forum to the satisfaction of most all the participants there. I doubt they will get test participants who don't think they they are given suffient control over the setup, protocol and equipment to conduct truly independent tests. Again, with a promised COP of 20+ @ 650C for 96 hours, this should not be that hard - if it actually happens. Perhaps the world will be focused on Greece for some positive reasons for a change.

If anyone wants to read the Defkalion forum thread on this, it can be found here:
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/v ... ?f=4&t=926

[Joseph Chikva]

This argument boils down to arguing that the CF experimenters have no idea how to do calorimetry.

As I understand here is thread on Rossi's approach. Somewhere in quoted here link I saw the table summarizing all CF approaches. And in all others the excess heat is estimated as several percents of input while Rossi's claim is about 250% if I recall correctly. Now please inform where Rossi showed good calorimetry?

For your reference several percents for other experiments comparable with measurement error. And absolutely not interesting for practical usage. While 250% - yes, interesting.

And what Dr. Duncan says? If you trust only his opinion.

[Kahuna]

Here is Mat Lewan's NyTeknik article on the Defkalion invitation for testing of their Hyperion reactors:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 391463.ece

[Crawdaddy]

This argument boils down to arguing that the CF experimenters have no idea how to do calorimetry.

As I understand here is thread on Rossi's approach. Somewhere in quoted here link I saw the table summarizing all CF approaches. And in all others the excess heat is estimated as several percents of input while Rossi's claim is about 250% if I recall correctly. Now please inform where Rossi showed good calorimetry?

For your reference several percents for other experiments comparable with measurement error. And absolutely not interesting for practical usage. While 250% - yes, interesting.

And what Dr. Duncan says? If you trust only his opinion.

You are obviously very confused. My post was meant to highlight the fact that a recognized world authority in calorimetry, robert duncan, travelled around the world verifying cold fusion claims. His conclusion was the effect is real. His opinion is worth that of a thousand armchair skeptards who love to post inane comments on the internet but fail to do the most basic research into the existing literature. Over and above the myriad claims of excess heat there are very well done experiments showing transmutation, anomalous coulomb screening effects, and energetic particle emission, as a thoroughsearch of the recent literature using the storms 2010 review as a leading reference reveals

[jratcliff63367]

I have decided that the title of my next LENR article will be, 'Dr. Zadowdny will you please come out and play?'

I haven't seen this kind of petulant behavior since we threw an inside strike to Timmie Brown and he took his ball and went sulking home.

[Joseph Chikva]

...recognized world authority in calorimetry, robert duncan,...

I am afraid that Dr. Duncan will not like the rank you raised him. As only medium school skill is enough for calorimetry. "The world authority in calorimetry" sounds pejoratively for any member American Physical Society.

His conclusion was the effect is real.

May be his assumption and not conclusion is that cold fusion is possible. And not real.
If I am wrong please provide corresponding link.

For example my assumption is that higher developed civilizations can have technologies for moving in space with velocities exceeding speed of light. But is that real?

Yes, BHC has showed some very fast neitrinos. But this should be checked again and again. Would you propose to build hypervelocity spacecraft today?

[Crawdaddy]

...recognized world authority in calorimetry, robert duncan,...

I am afraid that Dr. Duncan will not like the rank you raised him. As only medium school skill is enough for calorimetry. "The world authority in calorimetry" sounds pejoratively for any member American Physical Society.

His conclusion was the effect is real.

May be his assumption and not conclusion is that cold fusion is possible. And not real.
If I am wrong please provide corresponding link.

For example my assumption is that higher developed civilizations can have technologies for moving in space with velocities exceeding speed of light. But is that real?

Yes, BHC has showed some very fast neitrinos. But this should be checked again and again. Would you propose to build hypervelocity spacecraft today?

Meaningless post. Absolutely devoid of any information.

A simple google search will reveal chancellor Duncan's opinions. Your assertion is wrong and reveals an intellectual laziness that is common to almost all your posts. It is amusing to watch you make baseless claims that are contradicted by the most readily available information and then demand that you be provided with links.

You are welcome to have the last word in this exchange, i consider you a troll and not worth the effort.

[Joseph Chikva]

Meaningless post. Absolutely devoid of any information.

A simple google search will reveal chancellor Duncan's opinions.

So, you can not provide link and propose to search information from myself. Usually the person asserting something (in this case you informing me that Dr. Duncun says that and that) provides corresponding approval of his assertion. One link would be enough.

Again I assume that some people including Dr. Duncan assume that fusion or transmutation in crystal lattice is possible. I saw such information. But have never seen that serious scientist likes Rossi's calorimetry. I also saw mentioned above table by which energy release by Rossi's approach exceeds other LENR experimenters’ on two order of magnitude.

I am asserting from myself without quoting of any "world class experts’ in calorimetry" opinion that Rossi's 5 kW demo has been done very badly and did not allow to get accurate data. As even 750 W of electric input in that demo also would give some steam. And there was not clear at all: was there water flow equal to steam flow?

His "1 MW plant" demo was even less informative.

So, good luck.

[Joseph Chikva]

Absolutely devoid of any information.

A simple google search will reveal chancellor Duncan's opinions.

Ok, if you wish.
Look that asserting something I am also providing the corresponding link:
http://e-catsite.com/2011/12/04/mizzou- ... -research/

Dr. Duncan proposed a national fund to spread study of the cold fusion/LENR phenomenon across the United States. “Without a nationally funded program, you’re going to be limited by the scope of what you can do,” he said. Commenting on the continuing controversy over even what to name the observed effect, Dr. Duncan stated: “The biggest problem in this whole area is that everyone is trying to say what the origin of effect is,” he said. “What we’ve got are different camps convinced it’s either fusion or LENR or some type of new enhanced chemical effect. We just don’t have an understanding in the physics yet. … We need to slow down and do careful scientific inquiry.”

[tomclarke]

Every well done experiment has been negative, the only “positive” experiments have been poorly done and poorly instrumented. To me, that suggests a pattern that is consistent with the positive experiments being due to error and artifact.



Posted by: daedalus2u | December 8, 2011 4:19 PM

I wonder what "well done" experiments he is talking about. I have never seen such a report. Perhaps you can link one.

http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/Inc-W/Mizuno.html

This argument boils down to arguing that the CF experimenters have no idea how to do calorimetry. A much more authoritative figure than deadalus2u disagrees. I trust the opinion of Robert Duncan much more than some guy on the net.

Don't trust anyone, go look up the source material yourself. It is not difficult to compare good with bad experiments: if you do the errors and ommissions in the bad ones become obvious.

[tomclarke]

All this bickering is a waste of time.

If Defkalion can deliver the goods (and we will hopefully know within a couple of months), then obviously Rossi stumbled onto something despite what people think, justified or not, about his past.

If the Defkalion independent tests fizzle, then so too does this whole story, in my opinion.

Why spend effort arguing about fake degrees when all will hopefully be settled soon enough.

Frankly, at this stage I don't care too much about who did what, I just pray that this new energy source is valid. You all should too, because the world surely needs it.

Well said! Defkalion is clearly the next shoe to drop. There may be some modest delays, but I don't see any major issues with their published test guidelines which have been further clarified on their forum to the satisfaction of most all the participants there. I doubt they will get test participants who don't think they they are given suffient control over the setup, protocol and equipment to conduct truly independent tests. Again, with a promised COP of 20+ @ 650C for 96 hours, this should not be that hard - if it actually happens. Perhaps the world will be focused on Greece for some positive reasons for a change.

If anyone wants to read the Defkalion forum thread on this, it can be found here:
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/v ... ?f=4&t=926

If I have read the Defkalion test parameters (within which tests will be agreed) right:

Drill down to the parameters within which testing will be agreed. They will not allow flow calorimetry. This is what would (easily) have proved Rossi's reactors real or false had he ever adjusted the flow rate for an output decently above both input and ambient (say 50C) and decently below 100C to eliminate uncertainty due to phase change.

The tests sound great till you see what they do. They have two black box reactors with thermocouples on the inside and outside. One will be active, one inactive. They measure temp difference, power in.

This relies in the thermal conductivity of the two reactors being identical. But there is no procedure for testing this. Faking the setup as described would be very easy.

The method is OK if very carefully checked, but it is not intrinsically as bomb-proof as flow calorimetry. That BTW is why Rossi clearly did not have anything. His methods (from the first 10 tests) could very easily have been adjusted for bomb-proof results. And many people told him how to do this.

These tests are particularly unhelpful because the results will depend on the internal thermal characteristics of the two (sealed) reactors. It looks as though people will be asked to assume that the two reactors are identical - else why have the control reactor. But that is not externally verifiable.

This type of calorimetry is commonly used, but with careful calibration of test vessel thermal conductivity before and after. Looks like Defkalion are replacing this step (which would be much more difficult to fake) by the two reactors, which are trivial to fake.

Still, I will await what really happens in these tests. With no expectation.

[Kahuna]

If I have read the Defkalion test parameters (within which tests will be agreed) right:

Drill down to the parameters within which testing will be agreed. They will not allow flow calorimetry. This is what would (easily) have proved Rossi's reactors real or false had he ever adjusted the flow rate for an output decently above both input and ambient (say 50C) and decently below 100C to eliminate uncertainty due to phase change.

The tests sound great till you see what they do. They have two black box reactors with thermocouples on the inside and outside. One will be active, one inactive. They measure temp difference, power in.

This relies in the thermal conductivity of the two reactors being identical. But there is no procedure for testing this. Faking the setup as described would be very easy.

The method is OK if very carefully checked, but it is not intrinsically as bomb-proof as flow calorimetry. That BTW is why Rossi clearly did not have anything. His methods (from the first 10 tests) could very easily have been adjusted for bomb-proof results. And many people told him how to do this.

These tests are particularly unhelpful because the results will depend on the internal thermal characteristics of the two (sealed) reactors. It looks as though people will be asked to assume that the two reactors are identical - else why have the control reactor. But that is not externally verifiable.

This type of calorimetry is commonly used, but with careful calibration of test vessel thermal conductivity before and after. Looks like Defkalion are replacing this step (which would be much more difficult to fake) by the two reactors, which are trivial to fake.

Still, I will await what really happens in these tests. With no expectation.

Thanks for sharing your insights and expertise Tom.

I would hope that any third parties venturing into these tests would be satisfied that they can exercise the care (you mention) to do the static calorimitry properly with valid results. From what I understand, part of the issue that makes flow calorimitry more difficult is that the Hyperions are closed loop systems using glycol and heat exchangers. Defkalion says they have internal instruments (part of the control system) that do flow calorimitry on the glycol, but knew that this would (should) not be trusted by the testing groups.

It will be interesting to see who accepts the invitation. If nobody does based on the issues you cite, I would think Defkalion would be forced to change their rules as it would be very embarassing to them to admit the lack of interest.

[tomclarke]

If I have read the Defkalion test parameters (within which tests will be agreed) right:

Drill down to the parameters within which testing will be agreed. They will not allow flow calorimetry. This is what would (easily) have proved Rossi's reactors real or false had he ever adjusted the flow rate for an output decently above both input and ambient (say 50C) and decently below 100C to eliminate uncertainty due to phase change.

The tests sound great till you see what they do. They have two black box reactors with thermocouples on the inside and outside. One will be active, one inactive. They measure temp difference, power in.

This relies in the thermal conductivity of the two reactors being identical. But there is no procedure for testing this. Faking the setup as described would be very easy.

The method is OK if very carefully checked, but it is not intrinsically as bomb-proof as flow calorimetry. That BTW is why Rossi clearly did not have anything. His methods (from the first 10 tests) could very easily have been adjusted for bomb-proof results. And many people told him how to do this.

These tests are particularly unhelpful because the results will depend on the internal thermal characteristics of the two (sealed) reactors. It looks as though people will be asked to assume that the two reactors are identical - else why have the control reactor. But that is not externally verifiable.

This type of calorimetry is commonly used, but with careful calibration of test vessel thermal conductivity before and after. Looks like Defkalion are replacing this step (which would be much more difficult to fake) by the two reactors, which are trivial to fake.

Still, I will await what really happens in these tests. With no expectation.

Thanks for sharing your insights and expertise Tom.

I would hope that any third parties venturing into these tests would be satisfied that they can exercise the care (you mention) to do the static calorimitry properly with valid results. From what I understand, part of the issue that makes flow calorimitry more difficult is that the Hyperions are closed loop systems using glycol and heat exchangers. Defkalion says they have internal instruments (part of the control system) that do flow calorimitry on the glycol, but knew that this would (should) not be trusted by the testing groups.

It will be interesting to see who accepts the invitation. If nobody does based on the issues you cite, I would think Defkalion would be forced to change their rules as it would be very embarassing to them to admit the lack of interest.

Reading the comments (some from Defkalion) it is not clear what they will allow. Static calorimetry is simpler in terms of equipment than flow calorimetry, but much more difficult in terms of analysis. So just working out whether a test of this type is safe or not requires great precision. If there were enough extrenal control over placing of thermocouples, and composition of outer layer (between the inner and outer thermocouples, it would be OK. There is no reason this whole part of the experiment should not be supplied externally.

Anyway, on many grounds, starting with Rossi, I view Defkalion as engaged in PR, not science. So I expect some tests which seem impressive but remain unsafe.