Guest post by Ric Werme
Six months ago I posted, with Anthony’s consent and misgivings, Cold Fusion Going Commercial!?. It’s time to take a look at how Dr Rossi and his Energy Catalyzer are doing. In a word, Wow. There’s a huge amount of information and blogish speculation on the web now despite there being still very little in the mainstream press. There’s a new blog that looks pretty good, other new blogs I haven’t checked out yet, existing blogs have a lot of information, and it may be quite a while before I get back to teasing information out of Rossi’s blog.
First, a quick summary. Andrea Rossi, associated with the University of Bologna, took research from Sergio Focardi and scaled it up with a nanostructured nickel substrate and an undisclosed (but supposedly inexpensive) catalyst that fuses hydrogen with nickel releasing heat and some gamma rays. A demonstration unit in January took 400 watts in and put 12 kilowatts out, boiling some 8.8 liters of water in 30 minutes. He says units have run for months heating his laboratory, designs that don’t need a continuous source of input heat can be built but are unstable and difficult to stop. The reactor produces copper, but it’s still unclear just how hydrogen is overcoming Coulomb repulsion without needing particle accelerators or pressures akin to the center of a star.
In January Rossi announced that a 1 MW reactor was going to be the first commercial development. That is proceeding. Manufacturing rights have been split between Defkalion Green Technologies S.A. in Greece and AmpEnergo Inc. in the USA The former gets Europe, Asia, and Africa; the latter gets the Americas and Caribbean.
Defkalion is building the 1 MW reactor based on an array of small modules similar to those used in the January demonstration. Ampenergo may use a similar approach, but may not be producing modules yet.
Let me do the rest of this in a question and answer format:
Umm, what is this good for? What am I supposed to be excited about?
Ah, a very good question. I’m going to take a very conservative approach to the answer, i.e. squash the hype. First and foremost, all the usable energy this produces is heat. The major limitation of this is the maximum temperature the reactor can run at, Rossi says they keep it at no more than 500°C. Modern power plants can produce steam at 600°C and a pressure of 250 bar. While this is unobtainable from from the Rossi device, it could be used in a two stage boiler – an E-cat stage to get the temperature up to several hundred degrees and a conventional plant to finish it.
So the E-cat device by itself would have to run at a lower temperature and the laws of thermodynamics mean that the E-cats alone will have to run at a lower efficiency than conventional plants. Let’s assume for now that the E-cat device can’t heat water to a point where it can be used efficiently in a steam power plant. Let’s ignore that lower efficiency may not preclude it from being cost effective. Let’s also ignore combined heat and power systems.
So then all we have is something that produces a lot of something that the existing power plant operators would call waste heat. Portable heat at that – the 1 MW pilot reactor will fit in a 20′ x 40′ container (6 x 12 m). What’s that good for? Industrial-sized space heating for one. A long time ago I read that genetic engineering would have a greater impact on the agricultural business than on human medicine. Ever since then, I’ve looked at the Ag business as really big business. One big consumer of propane is drying grain post harvest for shipping, storage, etc. A little corner of the AG world in New England is maple sugaring. Typically 40 units of maple sap is boiled down to 1 unit of syrup. Some processors do it the old fashioned way with wood fires (usually scrap maple!) or the not so romantic oil burners. There are reverse osmosis systems for removing the bulk of the water, but it has to be finished (and cooked!) in a boiler. Why not have nuclear powered maple syrup?
Patios, sidewalks, driveways are sometimes heated to keep them snow free. Some airports and cities have big melters that pay loaders dump snow into and propane heaters turn it into water to dump down the storm sewers.
There are a whole lot of things you could code that would fry the arch-conservationists, like heating entire roads or keeping open air swimming pools open through the winter.
My favorite idea is small scale, but incredibly practical – Antarctic research stations need to stock up on enough fuel oil during the summer to keep warm during the winter. A heat source that is refueled once a year would thrill the physical plant personnel.
Energy production needs energy, and the E-Cat could fit in to some current applications (assuming the applications are still viable). Distilling ethanol from the biological fermenters used to convert corn to ethanol is one. Another providing the hot water used in oil sand and oil shale extraction. Currently that’s provided by burning natural gas, and there may be plenty of that associated with the source that it’s remains the sensible heat source.
So, the answer is that simply heat is well worth getting excited about.
Yeah, but what about me?
Rossi is concerned about keeping some of the intellectual property a trade secret. That, and concerns about shutting down the reaction made me assume that the home heating market would be the last to develop, but Defkalion is planning a small box that can hold 1-6 5 kW modules for a combined heat and power application, including residential use. If I recall correctly, a typical residential oil burning furnace burns oil at the rate of one gallon per hour. That’s 40 kW, so yeah, If the fears for some brutal winters come true, Defkalion may be very busy!
Dude, what about the US, you keep talking about Greeks!
Well, living in New Hampshire, I’m pleased to report that Ampenergo is located in NH. The principals are Karl Norwood, Richard Noceti, Robert Gentile, and Craig Cassarino.
Robert Gentile was the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) during the early 1990’s. That’s okay. He is/was President of Leonardo Technologies Inc., an Ohio company that may have been set up by Rossi and is related to the Leonardo Corp in Bedford, NH. The links are weird, I haven’t figured them all out.
Richard Noceti co-wrote a paper titled Synthesis of Hydrocarbon Fuels using Renewable and Nuclear Energy and is listed as National Energy Technology Laboratory and LTI Associates. That’s good.
Karl Norwood is the President of The Norwood Group, a large real estate company based in Bedford NH. Hmm. His Linked-in entry says “Karl Norwood’ss [sic] real estate experience is multi-faceted, from multi-family to office and industrial properties. In business for over 40 years, he has been actively involved in all forms of commercial brokerage, negotiating on behalf of both landlords and tenants.” Whoa, shouldn’t we have a few manufacturing folks here?
In January, I went looking for the Leonardo Corp and was surprised to find it shared the same phone number as Norwood Realty. So I stopped there one day in January and the receptionist gave me Craig Cassarino’s phone number and said he was in Brazil that week. I eventually called him a month or so later. He knew little of cold fusion history or other research that went on in New Hampshire, he’s more of an international business consultant. Exportnh.org says “Craig Cassarino has spent decades focused on sustainability of resources in both New Hampshire and Brazil, so it’s very fitting that now, as New Hampshire’s Commercial Consul for Brazil, he is serving as a resource for Granite State businesses interested in doing business in Brazil.” Oh my.
So it sounds to me as though Ampenergo will be a middleman between sub licensees and Rossi. I’m sure they have lots of contacts to work with. Frankly, I expected to find something like a General Electric throwing hundreds of engineers at designs of all scales and dozens of scientists to build higher temperature devices, better heat flow management, figure out the nuclear physics, etc. Perhaps GE is, but are doing so quietly. At any rate, look to Defkalion for early results, perhaps Ampenergo can get factories set up throughout the Americas (or just in Brazil) later. I think the modules for the 1 MW reactor are being made in Florida.
How about producing electricity with thermocouples?
A “classic” thermocouple relies on the relative ease of moving an electron from one metal to another in a heated junction. They’re used in gas fired boilers, temperature sensors, etc. To get a decent amount of power requires a lot of wires. Something I wasn’t very familiar with until I started researching this is semiconductor thermocouple that uses lead telluride. Recent research has improved its output by adding some dopants that produce points where it’s easier for heat to knock off an electron. Rossi is very interested, but I suspect that there may not be enough tellurium to go around. I have a small thermoelectrically powered fan that you put on a wood stove. It also serves as a good guess about the smoke stack temperature, as the hotter the stove gets, the faster the fan spins.
Cute device, pretty pricy. I’m sure there will be good applications, but overall I don’t think it’s thermocouples are efficient enough, inexpensive enough, and raw material plentiful enough.
I hear it’s a scam.
Well, suppose it is, we’ll find out soon enough. I think it’s likely for real, but there are several other opinions and red flags worth keeping in mind. If it is a scam, it’s a heck of a complex one.
The obvious opinion is it’s all been faked or that Rossi, et al, are seeing what they want to see and it’s all a fantasy. Early LENR devices had so little excess heat that it took painstaking measurements to find it. The device Rossi demonstrated produced so much heat that there’s simply no question it was producing heat. Even the input power, supplied by a piece of lamp cord, is nowhere near the 12 kW that was being produced. (On a 230 VAC source, that lamp cord would have to carry 50 amps to bring 12 kW into the test device. 50 amps generally requires AWG 10-11 gauge wire.) Other parties, including Swedish nuclear experts have concluded the device is real and is too small to provide the demonstrated energy chemically.
There are detractors, primarily science journalist Steve Krivit. He’s a longtime follower of the cold fusion/LENR scene and is quick to point out it’s not “real” fusion. He visited Rossi et al in Italy, burning bridges along the way. There’s a personality conflict, I think Krivit was looking for a science discussion about how it works and if it works, while Rossi was taking time out of another busy day building a 1 MW reactor expecting it will work much like his smaller modules, because they’re using many of them.
Krivit’s trip to Italy left both sides annoyed with each other. From that page, follow the subsequent posts to the actual interviews and observations of the system.
Krivit states “Thus far, the scientific details provided by the E-Cat trio have been highly deficient and have not enabled the public to make an objective evaluation.”
Rossi retorted later, “Mr. Krivit has understood nothing of what he saw, from what I have read in his ridiculous report.”
Krivit’s focus is on the boiling water test, and thinks that the output steam flow was “wet” – that water droplets cam out with the steam. Rossi set up another demonstration with much higher water flow to stay with liquid water, and measuring the flow and temperature gain. The results showed more heat release than before.
What sort of “red flags” should I be aware of?
Here’s a list, some are holdovers from cold fusion history:
- It sounds too good to be true.
And therefore requires extraordinary results.
- Scientists have come away impressed, but scientists are lousy at spotting fraud.
It would be nice if James Randi would take a look, there are a number of doubters on his discussion board. However, so much energy comes out of the device that it can’t be powered from the wall outlet, can’t be battery power, can’t be burning hydrocarbons (that second test released the equivalent of burning 7.9 gallons of gasoline). There’s not much else it could be, e.g IR lasers or microwaves.
- What’s with Rossi’s legal problems in the past?
I haven’t read too closely, but Rossi was involved in a trash to oil project that didn’t get very far, but some accounts point to corrupt Italian officials shaking down a company that was beginning to make money. (I’m shocked!) Those issues may be one reason why Rossi is working with Defkalion, a Greek company.
- And how about Ampenergo in the Americas?
I’ll contact them in a while. They’re going to have to move and move quickly. At least they didn’t spend much time on a name. 🙂
- If Rossi were a real scientist, he’d describe the catalyst.
Yeah, but he’s an inventor/entrepeneur. He’s focused on getting a product out, one that he wants to protect until things are more established. He may talk about it more in November after the 1 MW reactor is shipped.
- And how expensive is the catalyst.
Rossi says it’s cheap. There’s some other work that used palladium on carbon, I wouldn’t be surprised if the nano structure is from nickel on carbon fibers or even just charcoal. It may be his biggest advance is increasing the surface area of the nickel.
- This converts nickel to copper, which isotopes?
Uh, can I get back to you on that? Sergio Focardi says that what is produced does not match natural copper. Physicists from Sweden say “the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.” If the copper produced has the natural percentages of 69.17% 63Cu and 30.83% 65Cu, that’s a big red flag and and means either the result is contamination with natural copper or that the processes that make copper in the E-cat are similar to the natural processes, which should involve exploding supernovae.
On the other hand, if the ratio is different, then that’s very strong evidence that copper is being produced through nuclear chemistry.
No one seems to be talking about the iron. Iron is a couple steps before nickel, and that suggests alpha particle emission, but that’s more common with very heavy elements.
I’m still reading, I want to know more!
A remarkably amateurish but informative video was created by Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson at the University of Cambridge. I think it exists because there just wasn’t a decent video introduction. Is it an appeal to authority if the authority is yourself?
A blog dedicated to Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer has appeared as http://www.e-catworld.com/. It’s run by Frank (admin). I think I know who Frank is, but he never replied to my query. I think it will be a good source of information.
In a July post from Pure Energy Systems, there’s a list of Web sites focused on the E-Cat device. I’ve only had a chance to look at a few. (The last is one I found elsewhere.)
An interview with Sergio Focardi gives a really good background on developing the E-Cat. Focardi doesn’t know what the catalyst is, but suspects it’s involved in splitting molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen (ordinary hydrogen is a molecule with two atoms).
Wired had a good summary of LENR research in 2006. One person referenced, Les Case, was a solo researcher in New Hampshire and longtime acquaintance of mine. He died of natural causes a year or so ago.
What’s next?
The next big step is the completion, testing, and delivery of the 1 MW reactor. After that, Rossi might have time (or might be surrounded by reporters) and be willing to talk more about what’s inside.
I’m just amazed that the mainstream media haven’t picked this up. I don’t know how much of it is bad memories from the science by press conference days of Pons and Fleischman, and how much is pursuing more important stories, like which celebrity is entering or leaving rehab. When they do pick it up, they may overhype it, but it’s easy to show that maintaining a high standard of living requires access to cheap energy.
While the E-Cat device will not supplant many current uses for petroleum products, it doesn’t have to. It wouldn’t take much of a demand reduction to chase the speculators out of oil, and it could help reduce the cost of producing products from crude oil to refined fuels.
Whatever happens, our “interesting times,” as the Chinese curse goes, are about to become more interesting.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fusion for TEN minutes! These students have the future sussed.
http://www.oregonlive.com/beaverton/index.ssf/2011/05/three_beaverton_school_district_teens_win_electrical_and_mechanical_engineering_category_at_intel_in.html
I must ask, just HOW many times must demonstrations be put on to simply satisfy the cravings of ‘the gallery’ (the term *peanut gallery comes to mind) at your (or any other non-directly involved party’s) drop-of-the-hat request?
I wonder, to myself, if you have even reviewed what reports and evaluations exist from what public demonstrations and tests have been published to date my technical observers of said tests et al … of course, in lieu of true investigation many parties, like yourself perhaps, may be only choosing to flog Rossi when armed with tidbits of stories where he informs those pressing for more gratis ‘tests’ to be told to “Go fish”.
To whom does Rossi owe anything regarding his actions and activities, conducted between private parties using private funds – do you assert somehow that the public has some basis to lay claim to his inventions and intellectual property?
.
.
* peanut gallery – The hindmost or uppermost section of seating in a theater balcony, where the seats are cheapest.
.
@roger
If you look at the web site New Energy Times http://newenergytimes.com/index.shtml , the picture is very different. They were asking the right questions, and not getting answers that were even close. My experience with the web site is that they are more concerned about sound science and accuracy, than hype. From my perspective as an engineer they did ask the right questions. They approached the device fairly, and wanted to get the word out, good or bad.
All of the data I have seen has showed that the process is only supported by electrical power input. It is not a self sustaining reaction. What few controlled demonstrations have revealed that the process uses more electrical power than stated by Rossi. Also Rossi is not interested in measuring the true power output despite offers to do so. It would be treated as a black box. The power in compared to the power out, a simple and easy experiment. Why can’t it be done? Rossi will not allow it.
According to the report from the new energy times, Rossi is no longer associated with any university. While this is not a determining factor, The fact that there is an attempt to argue to authority, is concerning.
The easiest thing to shut up the critics is to have an open demonstration will the inputs and output monitored,and the data available to all. Until that happens, it is only vaporware.
U see Wall St 2, cold fusion lol send more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Mr Lynn says:
August 5, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Note Patterson did not say it was ‘fusion’ of any kind, cold, hot, or lukewarm.
I know that he didn’t. He doesn’t understand it completely. I do not understand it completely. No one looking at it understands it completely. But it is, none the less, happening. When it is commercialized and used by average people, in whatever form it finally ends up in, no one is going to care if how it works is fully understood. Everyone will be glad that they are saving a lot of money from it, and it is providing jobs.
Speculation from Julian Brown on May 20, 2011 at 12:03 am covers some of this (I am surprised you have not encountered such discussions):
Also Abd ul-Rahman Lomax says on May 21, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Have you not considered what it would take to ‘control’ a reaction that potentially could be self-sustaining and perhaps ‘run away’ (chain reaction) – have you not encountered this consideration somewhere else in your (extensive?) travels on this subject rpercifield?
.
Mr Lynn
I am not saying cold fusion is happening. But there is a reaction happening. There has to be a clarification between the two.
As Al Gore would say: Bullshit!
There’s a sucker born every minute.
Food for thought on what could be the answer:
Ric Werme, good job! Unfortunately, we’ll all need to postpone the popcorn until October.
Some Guy and others have commented on the possibly endothermic nature of the putative nickel-to-copper process. If I remember correctly, 56Fe has the highest mass defect per nucleon (MDPN) of any isotope of any chemical element heavier than 4He. However it does not necessarily follow that MDPN decreases linearly with increasing atomic number from iron.
At the moment, I’m in the process of moving, and my reference books are not available right now. If Some Guy is correct, his argument may be the simplest way to put this puppy to rest.
On the other hand, we should never underestimate the ingenuity of the human spirit. As a previous Dr Who incarnation (Sylvester McCoy?) once said:
Where there’s a will, there’s a beneficiary!
Larry Fields
I would say this, the problem I have with most of the Cold Fusion hacks is that they lack sufficient understanding of theory to support their claims. If we first delve into why photovoltaics is possible, we examine QM and QFT and recognize that within the field of photons that permeate our local space, there is a distribution of energy (going back the roots of QM). If the mean temperature of all the photons in the field is high enough, then their will be some high energy photon domain that is occupied. So if one can design a device that can tap only the high energy domain (the threshold associated with electron occupancy in some set of elements) as input and release low energy photons (IR spectrum) after some electro-mechanical manipulation, then you can create something akin to a normal idealized thermodynamic cycle…this is the reason that photovoltaics actually work.
Now in the cold fusion world, the same logic applies, however the scale of the cutoff thresholds are of much higher energy. If you can adjust the mean temperature of the proton field sufficiently, then there will be some portion of protons that have suffient energy to cause fusion, but the number will be exceedingly small. This fact can explain why one would expect to see some amount of fusion by-products at lower temperature (if one can show that the mean temperature threshold can be met). However, the threshold for create a chain reaction is very high. Even if you have production of high energy protons, the environmental losses are enormous, and the mean proton field temperature needed to ensure sufficient proton energy for chain reaction is much higher than the mean proton field temperature to see fusion effects.
Since the mean proton field temperature does not exceed that required for chain reactions, we can readily show that cold fusion is pure fantasy.
Assuming E-Cat works, there are ways in which relatively low grade energy can be used for electricity generation. The Geodynamics hot rocks project at Innamincka in South Australia was designed to generate power from a supply of hot water at around 260 C from a 4 kM deep well. The system used a heat exchanger to energise an Ammonia-water Kalina cycle turbine loop to produce 1 MW of electricity. The system was all set to go a couple of years ago, but unfortunately unexpected hydrogenation of the loop water caused hydrogen embrittlement and a lining failure in one of the wells. So far this project has been on hold, but there is a complete 1MW hot water to power plant there, just waiting for a supply of hot water. Some idea of the scale of this 1MW plant is given by the photographs in the attached links.
Heat exchanger:
http://www.geodynamics.com.au/irm/Company/ShowPage.aspx?CPID=1933&EID=18188631
Power plant:
http://www.geodynamics.com.au/irm/Company/ShowPage.aspx?CPID=1952&EID=17145285
Even if Rossi’s reactor works as advertised, there seems to be a degree of impracticability about the proposed 1MW setup in a 20 ft container. This would require 300 units with all their associated wiring, controls and plumbing to be packed into a 20 ft box. I don’t think so.
Steam cars? Maybe
Regards Ian Macmillan
[Reply: The 20 foot box description is for something producing 1 MW of heat. To produce 1 MW of electricity, much more heat would be required. The better comparison is to just the pump house at Innamincka, leave the turbine and generator out.
Note my emphasis in this post was just heat generation, not mechanical motion or electricity.
The 1 MW reactor will be using smaller modules than shown in the photograph.
-Ric]
I have no idea about the magic involved with overcoming Coulomb barriers, but I think it might be worth examining the energy balance in more detail.
There have been several statements that a reaction that produces Cu from Ni is endothermic. I decided to look at the possible reactions and tot up the masses to see how bad the situation was. So cracking open my old 53rd edition of the Rubber Bible, I get the following possible reactions:
61Ni + d = 63Cu, release of 0.0152 AMU
62Ni + p = 63Cu, release of 0.007165 AMU
64Mi + p = 65Cu, release of 0.008865 AMU
All of these reactions are exothermic. Any reactions involving lower mass Ni isotopes create radioactive isotopes of Cu that decay back to Ni via EC or beta+, so that’s just a means of climbing the mass ladder. Note 61Ni, 62Ni and 64Ni are relatively rare isotopes of Ni with abundances of 1.19, 3.66 and 1.08%.
I don’t see any easy way of getting to Fe. Most of the possible reactions on Ni either would create Cu or Co isotopes and none have a decay mode that drops all the way to Fe. If Fe is produced, there must be an alpha decay that I can’t find in the table.
Can you disabuse me of the notion that an understanding of ‘string theory’ is essential to the understanding of how a nail is driven by a hammer esp. if one considers the ‘volume’ of each is over 90% ‘space’ defined by a particle ‘in orbit’ which possess virtually _no_ mass?
Whole lotta physics going on there too …
.
Philip Bradley says:
August 6, 2011 at 6:05 pm
“With respect to Lubos and the other physicists here,
In science, phenomena precedes theory.”
Often, but not always.
Offhand, Einstein’s prediction of the bending of starlight and Dirac’s prediction of the positron come to mind.
“Current theory being unable to explain a phenomena, isn’t an argument for the phenomena not being real.”
However, there is a big caveat. If the claimed phenomena violates conservation of energy-momentum or the laws of thermodynamics, then the bar for the acceptance of the phenomena is set infinitely higher.
http://goo.gl/hwjae
Where are the back-to-back 1.02MeV gamma photons from electron-positron annihilation?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
“I’ve read enough cold fusion (or call it what you will) papers to convince me there is a real phenomena or group of related phenomena.
And Rossi’s device turning out to be a scam won’t alter that assesment.”
I’ll stick to the requirement that energy-momentum are conserved and the the three laws of thermodynamics are empirically always valid until unequivocally demonstrated otherwise.
“Although as others have noted, if it is a scam, its a peculiar one. Scammers don’t usually predict shipping a commercial system in 2 months time.”
Rather exactly the opposite.
Making such completely unrealistic commercialization claims is one of the biggest red flags of a scam.
As an aside, afte reading some of the above posts, physics and physicists attract so many crackpots who believe that they have a new supposed theory that will overturn everything that has been understood to-date, that they have developed an Index for quick assessment:
http://goo.gl/xiSQm
To it’s credit, the APS (American Physical Society) would allow any member to make a presentation on any physics topic no matter how “out there” at the Annual Meeting.
Before we get way ahead of ourselves and start talking about Big Science vs the little guy, skepticism vs cynicism, science vs magic I would like to go back to Basic Measurement 101.
Forget the cold fusion part I am not convinced they are even generating power.
rpercifield has it right and something I tried to say the day before. I made the comment about perpetual motion machines and NIST. When the invention were brought into NIST they would be instrumented so EVERYTHING could be properly measured and recorded. Only then could one accurately say is consumes X amount of power, and generates Y amount of power.
Basic Thermodynamics, draw a control volume around the device and measure everything that crosses the boundary. In e-cat’s case one needs to measure the following
power into heater #1
power into heater #2
power going into control box
temp of inlet water
flow rate of inlet water
pressure of inlet water
pressure, flow of hydrogen
temp of outflow water
If steam is the outflow this is much more difficult to measure and one needs something
more than a humidity sensor used during one of the experiment. Or turn up the flow volume so the outflow water does not boil into steam and then all you need to measure is flow and temp of water.
All this needs to be recorded continuously. As I suggested a laptop, the correct sensor and data acquisition system could be bought for $1,000. Go to Nation Instruments website for lots of examples.
Until Mr Rossi or someone else does this I simply don’t believe they are generating power. It’s not about cynicism it is simple science/engineering.
As to WUWT and Mr. Werme.
I am dissapointed that this was published in the first place as Mr Werme’s article is long on cheerleading and short on skepticism. The first I’ve heard of ecat was his article a couple of days ago. He points to Mr. Krivit as a skeptic, but dismisses him as having a personality conflict with Mr. Rossi. Well a quick Google led me too NewEnergyTimes report #3
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/NET370.shtml
I would suggest WUWT readers look at it and ask yourselves is this report not in the WUWT tradition of asking good questions?
What is the critisim of the Global Warming issue and why a project like Surfacestation.org? That much of the data collection and retention is poor, the analysis methods are sloppy or downright wrong, but its all sold as being 4 star top notch science.
Mr Werme’s article simply repeats Mr Rossi’s numbers without asking the detailed kinds of questions and analysis Mr. Krivit is attempting to ask.
I suggest we re-visit this issue in October, if Mr. Rossi builds his 1MW machine, AND it is properly instrumented so there is no doubt that his black box is generating power he will have the last laugh, make a fortune and change the world. In the tradition of Bob Metcalf (a few years ago he predicted the collapse of the Internet by a certain date, when that date passed, in front of a large crowd, he put a copy of his article in a blender then drank it, thus EATING his own words) I will be happy do eat my words and lots of crow.
But as I predicted yesterday the October demo will continually be put off, or the demo will be simply a bigger version of what we has seen so far without the appropriate instrumentation and e-cat will fade into obscurity. Remember, Trust but Verify.
Are you trying to assert that these phenomena, did not occur, until it was predicted by Einstein or Dirac?? In science, phenomena ALWAYS precedes theory. GK
A bit of bravado; a sprinkle of hubris; exhibition of the ‘all-encompassing confidence of youth’ perhaps; would also seem to assume mankind has always had its present knowledge and ‘practice of science’, neither of which is true. (Ever heard the expression: “There are no old, bold pilots“?)
‘Often’ – would seem to argue that pure synthesis (sometimes leading to the generation of pure fiction) is a valid scientific method, e.g. CAGW ‘projections’ of doom … but, of course, it is a valid method.
Looking at it in historical terms, some authors provide support for Phillip’s side, for instance:
Science and Social Progress
By Frederick A. Bushee, PH.D.
Colorado Collge, Sep 1911
From: SYMBOLS
By Helen ZIMMERN
Feb 1895
A Scientific Perspective;
The struggle towards an understanding of theory in information systems
epress.anu.edu.au ch01s03.html
Perhaps this rather boils down to – Rationalism vs Empiricism methodologies
Rationalism – Rationalist epistemology emphasizes the importance of a priori reasoning as the appropriate method for advancing knowledge.
Empiricism – The empiricist view is based on the central idea that scientific knowledge can be derived only from the sensory experience.
Still, in rationalism the scientist approaches the task of scientific inquiry by developing a systematic explanation (theory) for a given (observed) phenomenon.
.
Ahhh …. did any of the ‘perpetual motion machines’ have a fraction of the trail (OUTSIDE of the crack-pottery seen on YouTube for instance) that this technology has? I.e., any prior lab evidence (as ‘cold’ fusion does; whether you have studied, are capable of comprehending said tests being another issue) of ‘excess heat’ being generated as well as the expected ‘products’ of fusion?
Probably not.
Information of this nature:
Maybe you have not been keeping up with publications and experiments in this field; few do, so you should not be faulted for that, but, it puts you at a decided disadvantage to critique what has taken place to date (obviously; who can make a judgment sans staring at the data from a ‘controlled test’).
Of course, some ppl will flat _not_ accept any of this until they see marked down, discounted and shrink-wrapped product at a WalMart …
Many of us have kept an eye out for ‘hucksters’ of the type you allude to for a couple decades now; a favorite author of mine who has ‘bashed’ pseudo-science for years is Don Lancaster, author of The TTL Cookbook better than three decades ago now.
He begins his pseudo-science debunking page thusly:
Two points made years ago by Don Lancaster STILL stick in my head today regarding debunking ‘free-energy’ quackery – and those points are:
1) Most labwork ends up dead wrong. Either by not measuring what you think it does. Or easily getting misinterpreted [results. e.g. ‘peak power’ measurements vs RMS], leading to wrong conclusions.
2) Finding a source of ” Unlimited free energy” would be the most unimaginably heinous crime possible against humanity. For it would inevitably turn the planet into a cinder. Hastening an isoentropic [sic] heat death. If you find a free energy source, you damn well better find a new free energy sink as well. Even then, the relative flux rates will still nail you.
– – – – – – – – – –
BTW, Peter Brown, your allusion (or someone’s allusion to) ‘a couple of technicians and a copy of LabView’ and a slew of transducers did not go unnoticed; those would be the first things I would requisition to conduct a test of (an experiment on) a Rossi device …
.
The links are weird, I haven’t figured them all out.
They aren’t weird at all. The way one gets R&D money from venture capitalists and the government is to have a big ‘name’ on the company letterhead.
The potential payoffs in ‘cold fusion’ are enormous…so venture capitalists will toss money at R&D start-ups even if they only have a 1% chance of succeeding as long as there is a ‘name’ that says there is a ‘possibility’ of success.
I’m still waiting for my car with the 60% efficient ceramic engine that was ‘months from production’ 20 years ago(there was a little glitch with the motors shattering) and my ‘air car’ from Tata motors which will go into ‘mass production’ someday(the theoretical efficiency was never realized) and my ‘affordable hydrogen fuel cell’ car that was ‘just around the corner’ 30 years ago.(fuel cells are still mega expensive).
So we have to come up with a new term. I suggest “sputtering” cold fusion. Like a wet fuse, it constantly needs relighting. Chain reactions do not necessarily have to self sustain. Could explain why external power required. Useless speculation all, until the black box is opened or replication by some other lab, without a profit motive (surely the catalyst cannot be that exotic or unknown). GK
Moderator: A brief, inoffensive comment I posted here about 12 hours ago has not appeared. Could you check the spam filter?
{Nope, not there. If you wish it read, I’d recommend re-posting it. Robt]
@jim,
I am basically at the point of Prove It. I utilize control theory every day in my avocation, and have to quantify the the transfer function of the system controller, as well as system response. This is to make sure the the root locus of points are on the left side of the control plane to produce an unconditionally stable system.
Do you see any data showing a transfer function of the control system?
Do you see data from a system response to a step function?
Do you even see a closed loop system control?
Even if the theory has not caught up with the application, the data should indicate that the system is in control and responds to inputs. No matter what anyone has for conjecture good data is king. Without data and controlled experimentation, all we have is vaporware. Nothing Jim has offered meets the requirements of data under a controlled experiment.
We are talking about thermodynamics, a science that is over 100 years old and virtually every engineer and and hard science person has to take in their undergraduate studies. In those labs, conservation of energy tests were performed, and confirmed. If as claimed that there is a 6X factor in Power In to Power Out this should be easily observed in even the most simple of tests. Why is there no data from these tests? Why is the steam hose placed in a drain or bucket without any attempt to confirm energy flow? If I would have done this in my Thermodynamics lab, the instructor would have failed me.
I am not asking for trade secrets, nor am I asking for him to provide a theory of operation. What all of us should be asking for is real continuous data under controlled conditions. If it works fine, if it doesn’t fine. Don’t expect me to believe you till you provide me with data. As Richard Feynman always said “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
G. Karst says:
August 7, 2011 at 8:47 am
Typhoon says:
August 7, 2011 at 7:10 am
“In science, phenomena precedes theory.”
Often, but not always.
Offhand, Einstein’s prediction of the bending of starlight and Dirac’s prediction of the positron come to mind.
“Are you trying to assert that these phenomena, did not occur, until it was predicted by Einstein or Dirac??”
No, of course not.
Once in a while, theoretical physicists make predictions and experimental physicists go out and check if such phenomena actually exist in nature or not.
Einstein: bending of starlight
Dirac: existence of the positron
Josephson: Josephson effect; http://goo.gl/z7N8n
Salam, Glashow, and Weinberg: weak neutral currents: the Z0
to name a few.
This is completely different than the gobsmacking goofy post-modern view that these phenomena did not exist until someone looked for them.
“In science, phenomena ALWAYS precedes theory. GK”
Not even wrong.
Maybe E-cat will eventually wind up here.☺