Third Party Tests Conducted

[amdx]

On the right side of this page is the PDF download of a third party
testing of the the E-Cat HT. There were two tests 96 hrs and 116 hrs.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

Anyone care to read and review the paper.

This could finally the start of cheap power.

"the E-Cat has roughly four orders of magnitude more specific energy and
three orders of magnitude greater peak power than gasoline!"

The graph is a little strange because the E-Cat HT and Plutonium 238
are so far out on the edges.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

Mikek

[Martin Brown]

Credible third party tests using something that looked like precision
colorimetry gear would be a start. I can't see any journal accepting
that paper apart from possibly "The Journal of Irreproducible Results".

Walks like a duck quacks like a duck. Nature is the final arbiter.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[tm]

"amdx" <am...@knologynotthis.net> wrote in message
news:27840$519bcccc$18ec6dd7$31...@KNOLOGY.NET...

Why, this sounds almost too good to be true.


I'm sure there are many libtards that will help pay for it. Maybe with
taxpayer funding via another oboma energy dept grant.

[Martin Riddle]

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QnQmt.8177$kj3....@newsfe16.iad...

The use of a calorimeter would have been nice, more exact.
Measuring temperatures is almost meaningless. I can make something get
real hot too. ;)

Cheers

[mrob...@att.net]

amdx <am...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
>
> Anyone care to read and review the paper.

I'll play!

Before I started, I went and read the Wikipedia entry on the device
under test, but I didn't read any of the other criticism or alternate
explanations for what it may be doing.

The numbers are page numbers in the PDF. I have also given the section
titles from the PDF.

---
"Introduction"

3: I guess the researchers had to infer how many resistors there were
and how they were arranged because they were not allowed to see the
device disassembled, either before or after the test. Seems a
little strange. I would think the inventor would at least be willing
to show people the outer housing and resistors, without the "secret
sauce" installed.

"Part 1"
"Device and experimental set up"

3: The internal construction of the device is described, but then it
says they couldn't weigh parts of it because the device under test
was already running when the test started. So how do they know that
the description is accurate?

3: Why is the AC input waveform a secret? Does plain old sinusoidal AC
(at whatever frequency) not work? How about DC? DC would be a lot
easier to measure accurately and cheaply.

4: The seal of the end caps is asserted to be hermetic, without any
further proof. Couldn't you take a similar cylinder, hammer an end
cap into it, and work on it with pumps and pressure gauges to test
that assertion? Hydrogens are pretty small, so they will leak
through tiny places. If the hydrogen is essential to the process,
leaky end caps would make the device work worse. On the other hand,
oxygen, nitrogen, or other stuff leaking *in* might make it work
better.

4: I'm sure the 1200 C black paint has a product name, part number, data
sheet, etc. Where is it?

4: In so many words, "We weighed one that was just like the one that was
already running". How do you know? Why not 1) look at the shell of
one, weigh it, measure it, x-ray it, whatever you want to do; 2) make
a unique mark on it somehow; 3) let the inventor put the secret sauce
in it; 4) observe that the mark is still there; 5) do whatever
additional measurements you want; 6) THEN turn it on? In super
perfect world you'd get to watch the inventor putting the secret
sauce in it, but that seems unlikely to happen here.

4: The whole idea of working out the heat produced via an IR camera
seems goofy to me. I know you can use IR cameras for this purpose,
but as far as I know they tend to get used for relative measurements
(this IC/circuit breaker/whatever is warmer than the one next to it),
or for things that don't have built-in temperature sensors, like
maybe electric motors or engine exhaust pipes. In the latter case,
you usually only care about the instantaneous temperature, not the
heat produced. Also, you don't usually care about a 1 C or a 5 C
difference; the minimum step you care about is 10 C or more. The
application here seems to require much greater precision than that.

In high school physics we did calorimetry with thermometers and
polystyrene cups. There was a picture in our textbook of an
industrial-grade version with a vacuum for insulation and all
that. Why couldn't you stick this device in a calorimeter like
that?

The device is going to have some amount of thermal mass. Presumably
the input power gets diddled at 50 Hz or 100 Hz or so, but the camera
is only updating at 1 Hz. I'd think you'd want a little better
update rate on the camera.

5: They decided that they only cared about the apparent power. I think
another way to put this is that they assumed the power factor was
1.0. Why not at least look at the active and reactive power just to
make sure that's a good assumption?

Can the meter they used deal with the presumably goofy waveform
they used? The meter specs say it can autorange from 45 to
65 Hz. If the waveform is goofy enough, it will have components
outside that range. The meter specs say it can measure harmonics,
but is it looking at *everything*, or just at 60, 120, 180, 240,
etc?

Why not hook up a couple of different meters and see if they agree?
Given the levels of power involved, the voltage inputs to the two
meters shouldn't load anything down excessively.

Filming the meter and a wristwatch is kind of a cute idea (I've
proposed it myself for other applications) but that meter can also
log data to its internal memory... so why not use the internal
logging?

Again, it sounds like they used 1 Hz update on the power meter,
which seems like it might not be enough.

6: Why not include the results of the radioactive monitoring in this
report?

"Data analysis"

6: They assumed conduction was negligible. It would have been really
complicated to stick a couple of thermistors or thermocouples on
the steel framework periodically to see how hot it was getting, I
guess.

"Calculating the power emitted by radiation"

7: Why couldn't they measure the emissivity? This seems like something
you could easily do if you had the outer shell, devoid of the secret
sauce.

7-8: They only had one IR camera looking at the bottom of the device.
Why not have another one or two looking at the sides? I understand
that if you had one on top, convection would tend to heat up the
camera itself, but I would think you could tell the camera to factor
that in when computing a temperature.

"Calculating power emitted by convection"

11-12: Well... OK. I guess you can do it this way, but I think I've
read that in the real world, this depends a lot on the fluid,
currents in the fluid, the exact shape of the devices involved,
and so on.

Again, wouldn't it be simpler to stick it in a calorimeter, and
know that you've captured *all* the heat the thing is putting out?

"Performance calcuation"

13: Is there a rationale for the 10% error number?

"Ragone chart"

14, Fig. 9: Why not get a chart that has both conventional and nuclear
sources on it, so the results for the device under test can be
plotted with some context?

"Part 2"

"Device and experimental set-up"

15: This time they at least give a brand name for the paint. Still
no part number or spec sheet. They also admit that somebody can't
paint evenly. Still no emissivity measurement.

15: Magic power supply again. I wonder what the output waveform looks
like?

16: Using two IR cameras now, which is maybe somewhat of an
improvement.

16: Assertion that the video recording is non-falsifiable. Got a
chain of custody for that recording? Did you buy the camera at
random from a shop?

17: Trying to measure the emissivity. Again, why couldn't you do this
in a more accurate way by testing the outer casing without the
secret sauce in it?

18: Again, why not include the full report on possible radioactivity?

"Analysis of data obtained with the "dummy""

18: They did try their power meter on the input line to the resistors.
No mention of what the waveform looked like, or what the meter
thought the distortion was, or anything like that. If the control
box really was dissipating 100 W, it must be a fairly beefy thing.

"Analysis of data obtained with the device"

20: The 35%/65% on-off time is kind of interesting, but over what
time period?

20: Any rationale for using 5 divisions instead of the 10, 20, or 40
used in the previous test?

22: They seem to be using the 2% "error" number for radiated energy
as the error number for the convective energy also. I am not sure
this is justified.

"Ragone Chart"

22: Why not just do 37.58 kWh / 116 h = 0.324 kW for the average
consumption, and not have to refer to the (estimated? calculated?)
35%/65% duty cycle?

22: Is there a rationale for the 10% error number?

23, Fig. 15: Why not get a chart that has both conventional and nuclear
sources on it, so the results for the device under test can be
plotted with some context?

"Remarks on the test"

25, Plot 3: Would you care to label your X axis? It is presumably
seconds, but this is not stated. For extra credit, tell Excel to
scale it so that the major divisions are 60 seconds or 100 seconds
or something reasonable.

26: Trying to prove the heat output is not due to a resistor alone.
How about a resistor inside the same steel can but with no secret
sauce?

27, Plot 7 and Plot 8: Again, label X axis please. Scale X axis to
even units. On the other hand, this does seem to show that the
on time is roughly 2.5 minutes (assuming the X axis is seconds),
which answers a question I asked above.

27: The argument seems to be "the emitted power keeps going up after
the resistors are switched off, so something else must be
happening". What if it's just the heat from the resistors finally
working its way through to the outside of the cylinder?
---

Before anybody asks, I don't work for an oil company, mining company,
or anybody in the power generation and transmission industries (coal,
nuclear, hydro, wind, geothermal, whatever). The investments I have in
any of these companies, if any, would be through a 401(k) plan, nothing
direct. I also don't work for or have any investments in the
manufacturer of the device under test.

Matt Roberds

[mrda...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:39:09 PM UTC-7, amdx wrote:
> On the right side of this page is the PDF download of a third party
>
> testing of the the E-Cat HT. There were two tests 96 hrs and 116 hrs.
>
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
>
>
>
> Anyone care to read and review the paper.

No gamma ray detectors?

Michael

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:39:09 -0500, amdx <am...@knologynotthis.net>
wrote:

Over the very long history of free-or-excess-energy inventions, the
success rate so far has been exactly zero. Which is why we keep
drilling oil and gas wells.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

[Jamie]

John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:39:09 -0500, amdx <am...@knologynotthis.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> On the right side of this page is the PDF download of a third party
>>testing of the the E-Cat HT. There were two tests 96 hrs and 116 hrs.
>>
>>http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
>>
>> Anyone care to read and review the paper.
>>
>>This could finally the start of cheap power.
>>
>>"the E-Cat has roughly four orders of magnitude more specific energy and
>>three orders of magnitude greater peak power than gasoline!"
>>
>> The graph is a little strange because the E-Cat HT and Plutonium 238
>>are so far out on the edges.
>>
>>
>>
>>http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/
>>
>> Mikek
>
>
>
> Over the very long history of free-or-excess-energy inventions, the
> success rate so far has been exactly zero. Which is why we keep
> drilling oil and gas wells.
>
>
>
>

I just wonder how many of them the oil companies have bought or
had them added to the compose heap.

Jamie

[amdx]

There are still people digging up old dump sites looking for that
300MPG carburetor!
Mikek

[tm]

"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_v...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:NPUmt.8628$kF....@newsfe30.iad...

I wonder how many on this group have ever taken a thermo course?

[Robert Baer]

amdx wrote:
>
> On the right side of this page is the PDF download of a third party
> testing of the the E-Cat HT. There were two tests 96 hrs and 116 hrs.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

* Note "hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some _additives_" sounds
similar to test by Pons etc and others after the announcement.
Seems that good production correlated with "additives" and/or
contamination.

>
> Anyone care to read and review the paper.
>
> This could finally the start of cheap power.
>
> "the E-Cat has roughly four orders of magnitude more specific energy and
> three orders of magnitude greater peak power than gasoline!"
>
> The graph is a little strange because the E-Cat HT and Plutonium 238
> are so far out on the edges.
>
>
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

* A heater is a heater is a heater, "secret" waveforms total bullshit.
Use adjustable DC.
Better yet, if it is so damn good,toss the F-ing heaters and let it
power itself!

>
>
> Mikek

[Robert Baer]

In that case, i will sell you ten for the price of a certain (famous)
bridge...

[rickman]

On 5/21/2013 9:12 PM, amdx wrote:
>>
> There are still people digging up old dump sites looking for that 300MPG
> carburetor!

Wouldn't that be a 300 MPG fuel injector these days?

--

Rick

[Martin Brown]

DC would not allow you to cheat energy supply past whatever goofy way of
trying to measure it these well meaning cowboys cooked up. Their
attempts to measure energy in and energy out are risible. The whole
thing looks like a bad example of a high school science fair project!

If you think about it even for a moment if the peak power generation and
energy density of this thing was anything like what they claim from the
moment the "nuclear" reaction initiated it would require active cooling
to prevent meltdown. Instead it continues to consume power using the
magic waveform that defeats simple measuring instruments.

See the Ragone diagram on Forbes. Incidentally why are Forbes pushing
this? Do they have shares in this operation they want to pump and dump?

http://b-i.forbesimg.com/markgibbs/files/2013/05/130520_ragone_04.png

A humble wood burning stove is two orders of magnitude lower down the
peak power pecking order and they put out a lot of heat. The obvious
thing to do was insulate the test rig to the point where any additional
internally generated energy becomes obvious and then look for *nuclear*
reactions. I would probably have palmed one of the "tube reactors",
substituted a fake then subjected the original contents to ICPMS
analysis so that we could see what the thing *actually* contained.

Basically it still looks exactly like an experimental setup by a well
practiced conman who has duped a bunch of scientists/engineers.

Fleischmann and Pons did at least generate enough peak power to actually
damage their equipment even if it was not cold fusion. Their problem was
that they were electrochemists and their practice of calorimetry (which
was much better than this crap) was not up to snuff.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2013-05-22 09:04, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 22/05/2013 05:57, Robert Baer wrote:
>> amdx wrote:
>>>
>>> On the right side of this page is the PDF download of a third party
>>> testing of the the E-Cat HT. There were two tests 96 hrs and 116 hrs.
>>>

>>>[...]

>>>
>>> Anyone care to read and review the paper.
>>>
>>> This could finally the start of cheap power.

[...]

>
> Basically it still looks exactly like an experimental setup by a well
> practiced conman who has duped a bunch of scientists/engineers.

Whoever gets duped by this nonsense is *not* a scientist or engineer.

Jeroen --TANSTAAFL-- Belleman

[Nico Coesel]

amdx <am...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:

>
> On the right side of this page is the PDF download of a third party
>testing of the the E-Cat HT. There were two tests 96 hrs and 116 hrs.
>
>http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
>
> Anyone care to read and review the paper.

If you look at the report close enough you'll find the mathematical
and measurement errors for sure. The standard way to test these kind
of systems is measuring the caloric value of the energy produced. Any
other test can be tampered with.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

[amdx]

From the paper, they did melt down the first one tested in November.
Mikek

[John Larkin]

I did. Steam tables are really boring. We already knew a lot of that stuff from
Physics.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom timing and laser controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

[George Herold]

On May 21, 3:39 pm, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
>    On the right side of this page is the PDF download of a third party
> testing of the  the E-Cat HT. There were two tests 96 hrs and 116 hrs.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

Ughh.. you must really want to believe this stuff.

OK let me ask one question... (I didn't read the whole thing), but
they guesstimate the heat produced by measuring the surface
temperature. And they claim not to be able to measure the emissivity
of the surface.. but "conservatively" assume it's 1. Now correct me
if I'm wrong but that is *not* a conservative estimate. If the
emmisivity was (say) 1/2 then the thing would have to come to a higher
temperature to get rid of the same amount of heat!

George H.

>
>   Anyone care to read and review the paper.
>
> This could finally the start of cheap power.
>
> "the E-Cat has roughly four orders of magnitude more specific energy and
> three orders of magnitude greater peak power than gasoline!"
>
>    The graph is a little strange because the E-Cat HT and Plutonium 238
> are so far out on the edges.
>

> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-...
>
>                      Mikek

[Martin Brown]

On 22/05/2013 15:30, George Herold wrote:
> On May 21, 3:39 pm, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
>> On the right side of this page is the PDF download of a third party
>> testing of the the E-Cat HT. There were two tests 96 hrs and 116 hrs.
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
>
> Ughh.. you must really want to believe this stuff.

I can't imagine why. Amusing sci-fi plot but useless engineering.

Fleischmann & Pons were at least credible scientists who rushed into
premature publication based on slightly iffy calorimetry and had
everybody and their dog trying to replicate their cold fusion experiment.

This lot aren't even remotely credible except in the eyes of the
terminally gullible who fall for every other "free energy" scam.

>
>> Anyone care to read and review the paper.
>>
>> This could finally the start of cheap power.
>>
>> "the E-Cat has roughly four orders of magnitude more specific energy and
>> three orders of magnitude greater peak power than gasoline!"

And six orders of magnitude more bullshit than actual reality.

>> The graph is a little strange because the E-Cat HT and Plutonium 238
>> are so far out on the edges.
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-...
>>
>> Mikek
>

Take with one very large pinch of salt. About 1 tonne ought to do it.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[amdx]

On 5/22/2013 9:30 AM, George Herold wrote:
> On May 21, 3:39 pm, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
>> On the right side of this page is the PDF download of a third party
>> testing of the the E-Cat HT. There were two tests 96 hrs and 116 hrs.
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
>
> Ughh.. you must really want to believe this stuff.
>
> OK let me ask one question... (I didn't read the whole thing), but
> they guesstimate the heat produced by measuring the surface
> temperature. And they claim not to be able to measure the emissivity
> of the surface.. but "conservatively" assume it's 1. Now correct me
> if I'm wrong but that is *not* a conservative estimate. If the
> emmisivity was (say) 1/2 then the thing would have to come to a higher
> temperature to get rid of the same amount of heat!
>
> George H.
>

I think you have it backwards, But I can't find much to back me up.
I did find this;

"If you were to adjust the pyrometer for the theoretical emissivity
value drawn from literature, the displayed temperature reading will be
erroneously high. To obtain an accurate temperature reading, the user
will have to adjust the pyrometer for a somewhat higher emissivity than
declared."

If I understand the logic of that statement, the temp reading was
erroneously high, so they had to raise the emissivity on the pyrometer
to get the proper lower temperature reading. Meaning, if the researcher
used an emissivity of (1) vs (0.9), (1) would make the pyrometer read a
lower temperature than setting a lower emissivity that would cause a
higher temp reading.

Quoted paragraph from the is page;

http://www.keller-msr.com/temperature-pyrometers/emissivity-definition-and-influence-in-non-contact-temperature-measurement.php

Mikek

[George Herold]

> http://www.keller-msr.com/temperature-pyrometers/emissivity-definitio...
>
>                       Mikek- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hmm... well I didn't read the whole thing. But if you measure the
temperature and then from that you want to get the energy that is
radiated. Then higher emissivity means more radiated energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissivity

If the 'conservative' estimate of emissivity is just to get the
calibration of their pyrometer... then I just throw up my hands.
Measure the surface temperature some other way (a thermal couple).

So if the calibration of the pyrometer is a bit 'flaky', giving an
uncertainty in the temperature... and the energy radiated goes as T^4,
then that's an even bigger error.

As others have said, there are lots of ways it could have been done
better.

Why do you want so much for this to be true? I tend to be skeptical
about science claims... even in a peer reviewed journal.

George H.

[P E Schoen]

"amdx" wrote in message news:27840$519bcccc$18ec6dd7$31...@KNOLOGY.NET...

I was perhaps a bit quick to accept this as legitimate and convincing, but I
still think it may have some validity. I did some searching of the Cornell
University papers and found some more theoretical and probably more
realistic analyses of "cold" fusion and low energy nuclear reactions of
heavy nuclei such as Nickel. The probability of such reactions according to
classical physics is in the order of 10e-2682, but quantum mechanical
effects may have a more realistic probability. I posted a large number of
links in a discussion in the DIYelectricCar forum:

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/rossi-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-86033.html

But the paper that seemed most relevant was:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1211/1211.1243.pdf

I am not a physicist by any means but it does seem that nuclear fusion as
observed in Rossi's tests is at least possible. I doubt that the simple
apparatus he has built can actually produce the results he claims, and I
agree that many of the experimental methods are highly suspect, but I try to
avoid knee-jerk rejection of such presentations and keep an open mind.

Paul

[P E Schoen]

"George Herold" wrote in message
news:f50fc7f1-dd5a-4806...@s6g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

> Measure the surface temperature some other way (a thermal couple).

Is that two hot, horny teenagers getting' it on?

The nominal amount of power for a human body at rest is about 50 watts. Sex
probably peaks at about 200 watts or 1/4 HP. I wonder how the black body
calculations and radiated energy and convection cooling from sweating
correspond to skin temperature during and after coitus?

:)

Paul

[Martin Brown]

On 22/05/2013 19:53, P E Schoen wrote:
> "amdx" wrote in message news:27840$519bcccc$18ec6dd7$31...@KNOLOGY.NET...
>
>> On the right side of this page is the PDF download of a third party
>> testing of the the E-Cat HT. There were two tests 96 hrs and 116 hrs.
>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
>
>> Anyone care to read and review the paper.
>
>> This could finally the start of cheap power.
>
>> "the E-Cat has roughly four orders of magnitude more specific energy
>> and three orders of magnitude greater peak power than gasoline!"
>
>> The graph is a little strange because the E-Cat HT and Plutonium 238
>> are so far out on the edges.
>
>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/
>>
>
> I was perhaps a bit quick to accept this as legitimate and convincing,

Surely you jest. Fleischmann and Pons were convincing - they had an
excellent track record of previous electrochemistry research and made a
claim which although it subsequently turned out to be incorrect but was
described in a way that anyone who wanted to could try and reproduce it.

A part of me still wants to believe that they (F&P) were actually onto
something but that it required a very peculiar set of circumstances to
actually make it fly. Sadly it was not to be. There are still a few
stubborn groups around the globe trying to reproduce it even now.

This e-Cat thing screams "free energy scam" louder than a jet engine!

> but I still think it may have some validity. I did some searching of the
> Cornell University papers and found some more theoretical and probably
> more realistic analyses of "cold" fusion and low energy nuclear
> reactions of heavy nuclei such as Nickel. The probability of such
> reactions according to classical physics is in the order of 10e-2682,
> but quantum mechanical effects may have a more realistic probability. I
> posted a large number of links in a discussion in the DIYelectricCar forum:
>
> http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/rossi-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-86033.html

I am sure DIY electric car fans are all experts in nuclear physics.

Even if QM makes it 10^2600 times more likely you are still on a hiding
to nothing with a reaction cross section of 10^-82 in a lab reactor.

> But the paper that seemed most relevant was:
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1211/1211.1243.pdf
>
> I am not a physicist by any means but it does seem that nuclear fusion
> as observed in Rossi's tests is at least possible. I doubt that the
> simple apparatus he has built can actually produce the results he
> claims, and I agree that many of the experimental methods are highly
> suspect, but I try to avoid knee-jerk rejection of such presentations
> and keep an open mind.

If you do that your brains may well fall out.

Nickel and iron are close to the global maximum of binding energy per
nucleon. It would be very hard to think of a less likely substrate.

Palladium at least had a plausible mechanism whereby it might just be
able to get deuterium to fuse. This e-Crap stuff is pure hocus pocus.

There are any number of national standards labs in the world that could
settle this once and for all. Instead he takes it to a bunch of guys in
a shed and tries to pass off their dodgy "experiment" as a confirmation.

That "paper" will never see the light of day in a mainstream journal.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Jon Elson]

amdx wrote:

>
> On the right side of this page is the PDF download of a third party
> testing of the the E-Cat HT. There were two tests 96 hrs and 116 hrs.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
>
> Anyone care to read and review the paper.
>
> This could finally the start of cheap power.

Well, why are they using thermal imaging of a unit sitting in open air,
instead of a system which can measure the ACTUAL heat output? This
method is prone to HUGE errors due to emissivity, and the
convective/conductive heat transfer is simply ESTIMATED, no
attempt to even measure it! If you pumped water into a calorimeter
and weighed the amount of water turned to steam every hour, you'd
have an EXACT value of heat produced.

Then, if the thing is heating to 800+ C, why do they need to keep the
heater on at all? This is the one that troubles me the most. Put
some insulation around it and turn off the heater, and DISCONNECT
the wires! Then, I would start to believe it. But, as long as the
heater is still hooked up, I think there is funny business going
on.

Jon

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:17:11 -0500, Jon Elson <jme...@wustl.edu>
wrote:

Not to mention that radiated power goes as T^4, which leaves huge
opportunities for playing games. But I agree that they are most likely
cheating on the electrical measurements.

That power meter is tacky. It uses clamp-on CTs, so ignores any DC
power, or worse.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom laser drivers and controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

[Jon Elson]

John Larkin wrote:


> That power meter is tacky. It uses clamp-on CTs, so ignores any DC
> power, or worse.

OOOhhh! I didn't catch that one! That's how they are doing it!
Sine wave PLUS DC, fool the dummies! Easy to do, just put the
DC supply in series with a transformer and hide it under a cardboard
box.

Jon

[amdx]

I would like it to be true, but I'm also skeptical of it.
I've been watching it to long without any source that we would all
believe, come out and say they we verified excess energy from this.

But if they truly had 360 watts delivered to the unit, it would not
glow like the pictures show.

Also, it is not just Rossi that says he has a working model.

What reasons do Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbj�rn Hartman, Bo
H�istad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegn�r, Hanno Ess�n have to make up
a story or falsify results?
Sceptically hopeful, Mikek

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:40:34 -0500, Jon Elson <jme...@wustl.edu>
wrote:

They are using some mysterious trade-secret waveforms from some magic
controller box. The DC component may be deliberate fakery, or could be
self-delusion. Lots of folks start fooling people by fooling
themselves first.

A healthy slug of DC can saturate a cheap CT and even make the AC
component read low.

[George Herold]

On May 22, 3:02 pm, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com> wrote:
> "George Herold"  wrote in message
>
> news:f50fc7f1-dd5a-4806...@s6g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Measure the surface temperature some other way (a thermal couple).

Grin... I knew something didn't look right, but I couldn't quite see
it.

George H.

[George Herold]

On May 22, 7:37 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:40:34 -0500, Jon Elson <jmel...@wustl.edu>

> wrote:
>
> >John Larkin wrote:
>
> >> That power meter is tacky. It uses clamp-on CTs, so ignores any DC
> >> power, or worse.
>
> >OOOhhh!  I didn't catch that one!  That's how they are doing it!
> >Sine wave PLUS DC, fool the dummies!  Easy to do, just put the
> >DC supply in series with a transformer and hide it under a cardboard
> >box.
>
> >Jon
>
> They are using some mysterious trade-secret waveforms from some magic
> controller box. The DC component may be deliberate fakery, or could be
> self-delusion. Lots of folks start fooling people by fooling
> themselves first.
>
> A healthy slug of DC can saturate a cheap CT and even make the AC
> component read low.
>
> --
>
> John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
>

> jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot comhttp://www.highlandtechnology.com

>
> Precision electronic instrumentation
> Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
> Custom laser drivers and controllers
> Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
> VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro   acquisition and simulation

I like it.. the fancy signal is DC.

George H.

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:09:00 -0700 (PDT), George Herold <ghe...@teachspin.com>
wrote:

Trade secret!

I've wondered if a household disk-type power meter actually meters a half-wave
rectified load accurately.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc

www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom timing and laser controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

[Martin Brown]

Like you they want to believe in it and they have not been careful
enough about instrumenting for calorimetry a black box (cylinder in this
case) that is cunningly designed to deceive. They are reporting what
they thought they saw but that isn't the whole story.

Not really any different to the spoon bender Uri Geller doing paranormal
things beating Prof John Taylor but unable to defeat Randi.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[P E Schoen]

"John Larkin" wrote in message
news:um4rp8932ates089n...@4ax.com...

> I've wondered if a household disk-type power meter actually meters a
> half-wave rectified load accurately.

According to Wiki as well as the principles of operation, a DC component
will not register accurately with an induction type watt-hour meter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_meter

The newer electronic types, and most professional power analyzers, use Hall
effect sensors and instantaneous V*A readings to give true RMS voltage,
current, and power readings as well as VA (apparent power or Volt-Amps
Reactive), and thus power factor. Such a system can be purchased for under
$3000 or rented for about 1/10 that:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/DRANETZ-DBEP500-4-Power-Analyzer-Datalogger-10-to-500A-/321129602939

Many are even much less:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/FLUKE-41B-Power-Harmonics-Analyzer-With-Everything-Included-/251277365666
($750)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Valhalla-Scientific-2101-Digital-Power-Analyzer-True-Watt-Meter-4-1-2-Digit-/300891678515
($200)

If they did not use something comparable to these instruments, then I think
it can be safely concluded that they are either promoting a scam or are
clueless about power, and their credibility ranks among those deluded
denizens of the over-unity ilk who expose their ignorance on YouTube and
elsewhere on the web.

Paul

[rickman]

On 5/23/2013 12:00 PM, P E Schoen wrote:
>
> If they did not use something comparable to these instruments, then I
> think it can be safely concluded that they are either promoting a scam
> or are clueless about power

Or BOTH!

--

Rick