Lugano performance recalculated - the baseline for replications

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    believers


    Yawn.


    Quote from colwyn

    Trolls gonna troll.


    Mary Yugo finds people who are interested in Rossi's saga, and tries to push them into defending Rossi, in which case they are labelled a gullible "True Believer", or "a dummie", and demeaned and ridiculed on other internet forums.


    If you think my pointing out the nonsense you write makes me a "believer" my hypothesis on your reading comprehension/imagination is probably correct.


    Think of me as understandably skeptical of your "facts". As demonstrated above, these generally include many fantasy elements.

    For those other than Colwyn who follow this discussion, if any: I first started out to find and contact the individuals who had tested Rossi's thermoelectric devices at U of NH because I wanted to determine what they had measured and how. I could not believe that such a valuable technology would ever be dropped if it was real, regardless of Rossi's inane reasons. At the time, I thought maybe something had been tested at U of NH but maybe measured incorrectly or with Rossi's "participation" and usual sleight of hand methods. Much to my surprise, no citation I could uncover revealed anyone at U of NH who ever saw, published, wrote or was interviewed about Rossi's device. I was curious about Munson so at the time (a couple of years ago) I read the reports I could find and when Gary came out with his, I read them too. Below are direct links from Gary's FOIA search and my old notes and these are the only links I found (see below 1999-2001).


    The whole fiasco of an affair is amply clear. Rossi lied and his company, Leonardo (LTI) lied also and the CERL was bamboozled along, probably with Parsons. What a surprise. Find me any mention of an investigator from U of NH in the links below from Gary -- someone who can be contacted -- and I will be happy to apologize and contact them. There is no such a mention.


    So once more, since Colwyn seems to have a reading impediment: Munson worked for Parsons. Parsons did no tests, relying on LTI, a Rossi company to reproduce what Rossi had done. Rossi was in Italy at the time, probably in jail or house arrest. LTI could not reproduce the supposed work, not even close. They delivered JUNK / GARBAGE to CERL. For $3 million (conservative guess) of which Rossi and LTI got $2 million. The tax payers were scammed.


    NEITHER PARSONS COMPANY NOR MUNSON HAD ANY CONNECTION WHATEVER WITH U OF NH AND THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THEY EVER TESTED ROSSI'S SILLY KLUDGE THERE AND EVEN IF THEY DID, IT WOULD BE MEANINGLESS AND ROSSI WOULD STILL BE LYING ABOUT IT.


    Links to Gary's documents from FOIA:


    http://freeenergyscams.com/wp-…14/02/FOIA-Document-4.pdf
    http://freeenergyscams.com/wp-…oelectric-Devices-OIT.pdf
    http://freeenergyscams.com/wp-…moelectric-Devices-FE.pdf
    http://freeenergyscams.com/wp-…ment-1-November-1999W.pdf
    Rossi's worthless patent: http://freeenergyscams.com/wp-…ronically-transmitted.pdf


    So in summary, I looked through every document and search I could find and could not locate any mention of any specific person affiliated with the University of New Hampshire who admitted testing Rossi's device. I also could not find any detailed data of the performance of the device except for vague statements about it having an area of about a square foot and power out of 1kW which certainly is not the truth.


    Hey, I have an idea. One of the believers can ask Rossi for a contact name at U of NH (or who was with the university back then) and we can contact them. Anyone want to bet on that happening? :D

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    NEITHER PARSONS COMPANY NOR MUNSON HAD ANY CONNECTION WHATEVER WITH U OF NH AND THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THEY EVER TESTED ROSSI'S SILLY KLUDGE THERE AND EVEN IF THEY DID, IT WOULD BE MEANINGLESS (What?! 8| Skeptopath Alert!! ) AND ROSSI WOULD STILL BE LYING ABOUT IT.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    As for the report with the number ending in 489, have you seen it? I wanted to but I couldn't find it anywhere. All references to it I could locate lead to the CERL report.


    Quote from colwyn

    If you haven't seen it, then how can you possibly disagree with what's been written in the CERL report about it??... ...Your whole theory is a figment of your imagination.

    Well, Colwyn, I am pretty sure no matter how carefully I explain it to you, you will continue to misread and misinterpret what I write. It seems that nothing will disabuse you of the idiocy that somehow Rossi had a 16% efficient 1 kW and 1 square foot thermoelectric converter and this wonder of the universe (worthy of untold millions of dollars and a Nobel Prize) was tested by the University of New Hampshire with positive results and thereafter disappeared forever after it "accidentally" burned in a Rossi-fire. Indeed, I can't prove a negative and all the evidence has to be circumstantial. Understanding it requires an appreciation of how valuable the beast would have been and how the scientific method and scientists work. Also, you need to consider how crooks and con men behave. You obviously have no such appreciation -- none of it.


    To respond to your latest misreadings, what I said which you misread, is that even if Parsons or Munson had CLAIMED that Rossi had done tests at U of NH, I wouldn't believe it because Rossi is a criminal and an inveterate liar. What he told Munson and Parsons doesn't matter. And LTI *was* Rossi. Obviously, if there was some credible evidence of research at U of NH, OTHER than what Rossi or his marks claimed, it would be interesting. But no Rossi enthusiast (or Rossi himself) has ever come up with even a shred of evidence that the faculty or departments of U of NH were ever involved in testing Rossi's device. Admittedly only circumstantial evidence for the negative but very compelling evidence.


    I did (finally) find publications related to the contract number ending 489 as I said in my previous response. I listed them with links -- a lot more than you did. Apparently you misread that too.


    NONE demonstrates that U of NH actually tested anything. No identifiable person (much less a professor) from U of NH is mentioned or involved. NONE. It's all ROSSI-SAYS and ROSSI-FICTION. That makes the CERL report segment about U of NH absolute bullsh*t. Like all Rossi claims about his silly gadgets and kludges. Grow up Colwyn. Take some science classes.

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    For those other than Colwyn who follow this discussion, if any: I first started out to find and contact the individuals who had tested Rossi's thermoelectric devices at U of NH because I wanted to determine what they had measured and how. I could not believe that such a valuable technology would ever be dropped if it was real, regardless of Rossi's inane reasons.


    I admit to finding the ping-pong between you and colwyn less than enthralling, and also less than enlightening.


    Personally, I stick with what is undeniable by colwyn:


    As you say the claims were for very valuable technology. TEGs with high efficiency would be a goldmine. It does not matter how expensive to manufacture.


    That Rossi could never ante up with anything matching his claims is unusual, that such valuable technology, if even one prototype ever worked, is dropped, seems extraordinary.


    Personally, being kind, I'd reckon in this situation that someone made a mistake when measuring the original prototype. Easier to do than you might think.


    In Rossi's case it is fair to note that a similar mistake was made with the second Lugano test, and that the mechanisms for such mistakes are known for all the other tests.


    I find Gary Wright's site slightly more readable than Rossi, but not by a lot. It is a very low benchmark, so I don't read either very much.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Personally, being kind, I'd reckon in this situation that someone made a mistake when measuring the original prototype. Easier to do than you might think.


    Thanks for agreeing with me about the value of the supposed technology. It's a hallmark of believers that they often fail to appreciate that if the claims they believe in were real, the story would develop entirely differently. That is also true of the ecat. If Rossi could heat a building with an ecat in 2007, we'd have them coming out our ears by now and the largest companies in the world would be involved, Rossi would be a Nobel Laureate and a billionaire. That he's not is evidence that he's a rank prevaricator. It is absolutely absurd that the best Rossi can do, eight years after heating an entire building, is to sit in a steel container somewhere in the South of the US, testing a loose collection of 100 pieces of junk, 24 hours a day. The only possible explanation is that Rossi lied through his teeth about the whole thing. Colwyn doesn't get ANY of that.


    Since Rossi is a known criminal and consistent liar (unless you believe he has customers, sold a megawatt device to the US Military in 2011, heated an entire factory with an ecat in 2007, has a robotic factory ready to make millions of home ecats, a certification program underway for home ecats, makes nickel isotopes on the cheap, etc. etc.). In the light of that and the complete lack of evidence that anything was ever done for Rossi by anyone at the University of New Hampshire, you are way too kind. What evidence is there that anyone measured anything other than CERL's measurement of non-working devices at the end of their ill-fated experiments? You don't have to read anything by Wright to come to that conclusion but you have to plow through all the BS from Parsons and LTI. Hint: you can skip most of it because it's about presumed applications for non-existent devices. If you want to browse the stuff, just check out the links in my post two before this one. None is Wright (the links come from Wright) -- all are direct to original papers.


    ETA: Thomas, are you per chance suggesting that Rossi's measurements resulted from "errors" all along? But that is categorically impossible! Rossi was told, each time, how to fix his experiments. Levi was told also. This was done mostly by LENR enthusiasts in Rossi's JONP blog and on the Vortex open email list. It defies credibility to think that Rossi did something like six experiments/demos and each time made a different "innocent" mistake which resulted in a positive Q for his devices when none was there! That's why knowing Rossi's past history of criminality and conning DOD is important! What he has done with the ecat and hotcat is completely consistent with what he did with the supposed thermoelectric devices.


    There is no reason to give Rossi the benefit of doubt. There is, in fact, little or no doubt. NOBODY makes consecutive mistakes innocently and then NEVER backtracks to fix them and repeat the experiment when told sympathetically and politely about the issue. THAT would require insanity, or in Levi's case, incomprehensible stupidity, would it not? Similarly, it defies the imagination to consider that in his steam experiments, Rossi NEVER allowed a single control with a blank and a calibration heater-- EVEN THOUGH EVERY ECAT HAD A HUGE HEATER INSIDE WHICH WAS PERFECT FOR THE PURPOSE and even though much of Rossi's audience clamored for the controls. And then, in his hot cat experiments, Rossi did allow controls but not over the most important temperature range? If you think that was all coincidence, you just don't know human nature and con men.

    Mary Yougo and his Pseudonyms are spamming each and every LERN Forum around the planet.


    If You would be able to count the lines, the types, even if copy & pasted, these are more than 1 Million in 3 Years, You woud come to the conclusion, that there must be some handycapped person whith more than 12 hours per day free for vomiting his endless bullshit into all of the forums concérnd.


    Please ignore and ban him/her/it we don*t need the most silly here!!

    Quote from jimimo

    Mary Yougo and his Pseudonyms are spamming each and every LERN Forum around the planet.


    If You would be able to count the lines, the types, even if copy & pasted, these are more than 1 Million in 3 Years, You woud come to the conclusion, that there must be some handycapped person whith more than 12 hours per day free for vomiting his endless bullshit into all of the forums concérnd.


    Please ignore and ban him/her/it we don*t need the most silly here!!


    Dear Jimimo, With due respect to your opinion, I'd like to relate that I've been following LENR, and Rossi et. al., Mary, and many, many others for years now. I respect the contributions of Mary. She/he responds to the data we all have an opportunity to collectively observe, and evaluate, with reason and intelligence--across many, many forums. (Albeit without unquestioning assent!)


    On these boards, we follow LENR because we are interested in LENR. Mary is as dedicated to the topic as anybody I've ever encountered. LENR won't advance without dissent, intelligent challenges, and questions. In my view, Mary provides reasoned responses to reasonable questions.


    Physics is not a popularity contest. Discoveries and the advance of our understanding of LENR's mysteries will not respond to our mere collective hope for LENR's success and advancement. Mary is working, as are many others, as hard as anybody to unlock LENR.


    Many minds, many hands are needed. Mary's included.

    Quote from Rical

    In the Lugano report _ _ _ You, Peter Gluck, Thomas Clarke and Mary Yugo ...


    In this previous post, I was agressive against you. For this reason, I want apologize you. I cannot before because for this reason I was suspended to edit in this forum.
    I would signal at you a document which can interest you. It come from MFMP, it is named "A THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THE LUGANO E-CAT" an the conclusion from MFMP is very short "The mother of imb...es is always pregnant."
    Best regards.

    Thanks for returning this thread to nearer its original purpose.


    First, the link above is not from MFMP - it is from someone called Slad and linked by MFMP. That in no way makes it less interesting, since work is judged on merit not author, but I like to be accurate in attribution.


    I've already commented on this link elsewhere on this Forum. But not fully, so I will do so here.


    The content of this link is:
    (1) A claim that GSVIT/MFMP have experimentally determined that the Lugano reactor temperature was 1000C, thus contradicting both my analysis and the Profs, and showing a COP of 2. Such a COP would probably be above inherent errors, and so interesting.
    (2) A calculation of the temperature difference through the reactor wall. This does not make explicit its assumptions, e.g. what is Ka for the alumina, but since I did an identical calculation a while ago and the results look broadly comparable I'll accept it unchecked.
    (3) Some details about the phase of the inner contents of the reactor. I have no comment about this, except that it depends on the outer surface temperature and therefore point (1).


    I disagree with (1). Specifically, nether GSVIT not MFMP have determined what is the temperature of the reactor in the Lugano test. MFMP have done some experimental work with alumina reactors, but never clearly calculated the Lugano temperature from that work. GSVIT have looked at the emissivity of alumina, but also not calculated Lugano temperature. the GSVIT experimental results on emissivity do not contradict my result.


    The one person who has determined the Lugano temperature is Bob Higgins (I reference his work although Slad does not, but I think this is what Slad means since Bob suggests that COP value Slad quotes).
    You can find his work linked has reference [5] in my paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf


    I corresponded with Bob while writing my paper. Initially Bob did not make explicit how he determined the Lugano temperature. After our discussion he added his calculation, which you can now see in his paper. You can also see that it is wrong. He assumes that the incorrect emissivity input to the camera (0.4 instead of 0.95) should have an effect on Kelvin temperature which is as the fourth root of the emissivity ratio. That would be true if the band radiant power (measured by the Optris) changed with temperature as does the total radiant power (T^4). However the band here is much longer in wavelength than the BB radiation peak, and at these longer wavelengths the Planck equation approximates the Rayleigh-Jeans equation, which has spectral radiant power proportional to T.


    Of course, that is only an approximation, and I enclose in my paper the (simple) code that solves it exactly.


    I sound very definite now but I can assure you it took some time for me to be clear myself, and also empirical investigation using the Planck equation - at the time I was not aware of the Rayleigh-Jeans approximation only coming to that afterwards. As with many things when you understand it clarity is much easier than when you don't.


    This makes a big difference to the results since the ratio of Kelvin temperatures (claimed and real) is now (approximately) 2.375 instead of 2.375^0.25 = 1.24


    You can find this argument in my paper where I discuss the significance of Bob's results.


    I cannot be sure whether Bob agrees with me but expect he would. Our correspondence ended because he was no longer interested in this calculation and also very (understandably) absorbed with family matters.


    So - to conclude:
    The first part of Slad's analysis claims that GSVIT and MFMP have experimental evidence that contradicts my results. Slad does not give explicit references, but since I looked at the other work on the topic before writing up my paper I think I can make sense of Slad's point as above, and it is clearly wrong.


    Let me also point out that one of the helpful things to do when trying to make any contribution to a debate is to read, carefully, all of the relevant previous work. Especially that which one is contradicting. Slad contradicts my work (explicitly saying why he thinks it is wrong) but had he actually read it in detail he would have discovered that his reason for thinking this was erroneous, based on Bob's calculation which has an error that I explain in the paper at some length as above.


    Also, let me say that I welcome this challenge. Anyone looking seriously at this issue (as andreac here has done) should compare what different people say and come to their own conclusions about what is correct.


    Best wishes, Tom

    One more thing.


    Slad, in the reference above, points out that theoretical calculation of the temperature is inherently inaccurate, and less good than experimental validation.


    That is 100% true, and it is the criticism I make of the Lugano test, where the Profs never directly measure the high temperatures they claim. As MFMP have discovered, doing this with a thermocouple is quite easy, and it remains a mystery why the Profs claim this to have been impossible.


    So my work is in principle as good or bad as the Profs - and a high possible error is expected by me. Those who believe, for some other reasons, that Rossi's device must surely have the claimed extraordinary characteristics, might rely on that error. That reverses what this test was supposed to be, which is evidence for Rossi's claims.


    Anyway that is not a matter for me to judge since I've not myself seen any other scientific evidence for Rossi's devices to work, and the non-scientific evidence would not, even if positive, be as strong as needed to trump the scientific case which is that these claims are extraordinary and therefore require extraordinary evidence.


    This is Rossi's latest, best, most independent, relied on to support a patent application, evidence. I'd expect the fact that it turned out to be wrong to be persuasive. It is so to me.

    Once again, must say how I admire Thomas Clarke's patience and unbiased scientific discipline.


    Plain facts, nothing else.


    Thank you for sharing so much!

    Did anybody of You ever think about the most obvious fake in the Lugano Report?
    They talk about 99% alumina and over 1200C of heat... → Melting point of alumina is 933C degrees... Even normal cement will not work at this temperature. You would need fire resistant one. There are some ceramics that would work too.
    I suggest talks about Rossi should end, until a serious team, under full control of the complete process, has reproduced any of his claims.

    Quote

    Melting point of alumina is 933C degrees...


    Replacing 2 letters with 3 makes the statement come true:
    Melting point of aluminum is 933K degrees...


    Could Occam have done it better? ;)


    BWT for recalculating Lugano, see thread "Experimental Evidence on Rossi Devices"

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.