OK.
Lugano performance recalculated - the baseline for replications
-
-
I simply cite facts
No Mary, you repeat Gary Wright's lies....that the descriptive paper which documents the fraud was removed from the agency (DOD/CERL) web site!
Quote from Mary YugoInstead, DOD tried to erase the whole event from the internet.
Quote from Gary Wright
The document Thermo(2004).pdf was available for many years from –dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdfThis link is now dead, we presume, as a result of our investigations.
If you had bothered to check out what he says (generally a good idea when you read a paid-for attack site) you would realize that the entire domain closed down in 2012, and that the paper cited was available until it's demise:http://web.archive.org/web/*/dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil
After it was closed, the DOD just moved the archive to the EDRC website:
It would have taken you seconds to find this, had you chosen to look for it. Instead, you chose to blindly believe a clearly dubious source. Hardly the work of a real skeptic, by definition, which makes it hard to take you seriously.
You should measure the heat flux emanating from your mouth! The results my be positive or negative, but certainly revealing.
Colwyn
-
Two of AlainCo's other posts have been the most nuanced and insightful comments I have ever read on the topic of Rossi and LENR. I suggest we carry on notre [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon] en Francais, and see how far we get.
Thomas, you should re-read the calculations he posted twice on this thread a few pages back, hard to follow for some, maybe, but you chose to follow the red herring of transmutations, rather than get into the thrust of his quantitative argument.
Colwyn
-
Two of AlainCo's other posts have been the most nuanced and insightful comments I have ever read on the topic of Rossi and LENR. I suggest we carry on notre [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon] en Francais, and see how far we get.
Thomas, you should re-read the calculations he posted twice on this thread a few pages back, hard to follow for some, maybe, but you chose to follow the red herring of transmutations, rather than get into the thrust of his quantitative argument.
Colwyn
Colwyn,
May I respectfully suggest that you read what I have written before asking me to be more quantitative, or more specific in replying to others? I will, since you believe i have left unremarked some quantitative work of Alain's, of course check this. But I'd be very surprised if I had not already, properly, replied.
I also don't understand why you think I am following red herrings? The thrust of my argument is precisely that the excess heat in the Lugano test, the only independent measurement, shows nowt more than an electric heater.
Any comment about transmutations is speculative, since the transmutation evidence is highly contaminated (to use Rossi's 4 years later description of the only other sample he gave up for analysis). I do it because others do, and I mentioned it because the paper I was commenting on laid (in my view unwarranted) importance on them.
I look forward to your reply, perhaps I am misunderstanding you.
-
Thomas, I'm sorry if I have missed an earlier reply of yours that covers this, but I was respectfully referring to this:
Quote from AlainCoDisplay Moreok, transparency won't change the result.note that if ridge increase emissivity of the IR measured by the cam, it also increase the emissivity used to compute the output...in my rough computations, I join your result on temperature (I'm even more pessimistic with a peak at 750C) , but it also have impact on the 450W baseline, and on the output sensitivityif you integrate emissivity error on both side of the balance, something real remain, which may explain the transmutations.It appear if you simply compare the input power change with temperature change...only excuse to reach COP=1 is to have a lower emissivity than assumed already, which is not coherent with the initial hypothesis and corrections.
quickly computin
with 1450C estimated, if emissivity in the 7.5-13µm is not 0.4 but 0.9 (x2.25 more) then temp is 744C 1017K. e~0.53. T^4 ~ 1.07e12 -> p~.57
with 1250C estimated, if emissivity in the 7.5-13µm is not 0.4 but 0.9 then temp is 675C 948K.e~0.57. T^4 0.81e12 -> p~0.46
the ratio of power is 1.23, while for electricity it is +12% from 800 to 900W
during the calibration at 450W if emissivity was 0.9 instead of 0.7 , temperature would be 400C 673K. e~0.75. T^4 ~ 0.205e12 -> p~.15compared to 900W the change in eT^4 power is x3.7, while power in x2
compared to 800W the change in eT^4 power is x3.06 while power is x1.72there is many things to account :
- first change the calibration temperature with the same algorithm. here this decrease calibration temp by 50C
- estimate change in power between the various stable states and compare with electric power.
- intégrate convection (I did not do that her...)
- integrate temperature difference on the body (I did not do)with that simplified computation there are incoherence that appear :
- the change from 450W to 900W seems to cause x3.7 instead of x2 power increase, from 400 to 745C, implying a COP of 1.85
- the change from 450W to 800W seems to cause x3.06 instead of x1.72 power increase, from 400 to 675C, implying a COP of 1.71
- the change from 800 to 900W seems to cause 23% increase instead of 13% with a 70C change in temperature from 675 to 745Canother source of question is that calibration looked correct at low temperature, which seems incoherent with initial hypothesis (why emissivity would increase with temperature from 400 to 800C).
Quote from 'Thomas ClarkeAlainCo wrote:
another source of question is that calibration looked correct at low temperature, which seems incoherent with initial hypothesis (why emissivity would increase with temperature from 400 to 800C).
This was a relatively small error (approx 17.5C), and could maybe be accounted for by the thermal gradient clearly visible in the photo, or a mistake in the quoted emissivity (I have no data on this), or an error in convection (which I cannot easily check, but which is not very significant in the high temperature tests). In any case inconsistent results are not a reason to expect extraordinary evidence of LENR - rather they are a case to suspect that the testers have not got a solidly worked out testing regime.I suppose if you a priori believe that Rossi has working devices, arguing now that the Lugano tests are essentially null because they are badly conducted is your best bet to maintain your initial assumption. Given these were undoubtedly the best and most independent of Rossi's tests it is not a good bet.Quote from Thomas ClarkeDisplay MoreAlainCo wrote:
note that if ridge increase emissivity of the IR measured by the cam, it also increase the emissivity used to compute the output...
in my rough computations, I join your result on temperature (I'm even more pessimistic with a peak at 750C) , but it also have impact on the 450W baseline, and on the output sensitivityif you integrate emissivity error on both side of the balance, something real remain, which may explain the transmutations.
It appear if you simply compare the input power change with temperature change...only excuse to reach COP=1 is to have a lower emissivity than assumed already, which is not coherent with the initial hypothesis and corrections.
If you claim the transmutation is partial (say 0.1% of total) then there is no heat excess to speak of. If you claim the transmutation what it appears - total - you need a power out 10X what a 50% error here could give. Obviously too large. So either way COP 1.5 or COP 1 makes no difference explaining the transmutation.My code used the ridge correction on all the emissivities. In any case the known errors here are quite large, so I don't understand this comment.
Colwyn
-
Display More
So, I guess someone or other does not like that I even try to explain to Thomas Clarke why it might be a bit difficult to read Alain's English?
Sorry, perhaps you would like to post the specifics of your dislike here so I can directly answer your concerns.
Or is it that I was willing to praise Alain's work here? i guess that's fair enough, if that is your opinion. Many here, and I, have learned a lot from / through Alain.
No post? Then, I would just recommend loosening up a little bit.... whoever you are, you might just learn something of practical importance.
And, I will be pleased to edit, on specific and justified request, any post of mine that has specific problems. I consider my posts here to be a bit of an archive and often edit them myself.
Of course I agree with you hear. And my comment was in fact a bit lazy.
Alain is clever, and argues tenaciously from a set of assumptions so far from my view of reality that it can be difficult for us to engage in any meaningful dialog. He is (as colwyn here said) nuanced in the sense that he is clever enough not to avoid some of the obvious Rossi anomalies. Unfortunately from my point of view, trying to understand him, these nuances make his views so convoluted I find it difficult to know how to comment. That is expected - attempting to make a rational framework in which Rossi is for real must have a lot of "conspiracy and deliberate misinformation" arguments.
Anyway, that is a generalisation, and perhaps if Alain would like to summarise his arguments in as far as they apply to this thread (the Lugano tests and why they failed) I could try to follow his logic and reply to it.
-
@colwyn[/url] - I don't know but perhaps you are misinformed here because on ECW my paper, and any discussion by me of it, are banned. So perhaps you are not fully informed? Forgive me if I'm doing you an injustice: I don't go to ECW since I find it irritating to go to a site and read things I'd wish to contribute to but not be able to.
I read your paper here, I'm not sure why you think having your paper published on e-catworld would be some sort of achievement, it's a just a rumour mill. (I don't read the comment there for the same reason as you). Rothwell's LENR/CANR site is a much better home.
And, I agree with the main points of your paper, it's a good work. I just think your error bars are potentially even larger. The camera software is an unknown, and might even already contain similar routines to yours, maybe.
-
Thomas, my ultimate point to do with all of this, is that someone should get an Optris P-whatever, heat up some Alumina, and point the damn thing at it.
Now I say that, I recall GSVIT did that, although it wasn't the same model of camera. And, I think MFMP tried to do the same, but blew their Optris up somehow.
-
Just to be clear I don't master many languages, but I use google translate to extract general information on what may be interesting... with cautions.
My english is more fluent than precise, and most of it was taught by reading documentation and technical articles.
My difficulties to be understood is probably due to the fact I use many French mental and grammar structures, using uncommon or erroneous English structures. Old German and Latin practice make me love postfix notation. Prolog programmation make me abuse of relatives.
Not mastering all of that make it sometime unclear. I'm sorry.About the calorimetry, the only point is whether the reevaluation of emissivity at 800-900W, and of temperature at 450W, increase enough the emitted power to get clearly above COP1.
anyway the report is too ambiguous to conclude, not only on my hypothesis, but also on tomas hypothesis. The successful calibration is incoherent with thomas and My hypothesis.
I prefer to base my conviction on solid evidence
1- huge and surprising isotopic shift, that is not even credible as a trick
2- having let scientist alone with the reactor is evidence of self confidence in the reactor. this eliminate conspiracy theories of all kind.
3- Ferrara test which are well calibrated, even if it is with lower duration.
4- ceramic melting of the reactor in ferrara which exclude normal heating.
5- pathetic mistake in the report which paradoxically exclude the conspiracy, as a fraud produce a clear, clean and expected result.note that it is absurd to use both conspiracy arguments and error arguments in the same theory.
If not exact, it is either a pathetic failure, or a fraud... not both.
my position is the first.you cannot both have inverted clamps, and pathetic calorimetry.
you cannot have tweaked samples and erroneous calorimetry.supporting both position is a clear sign that one does not care of reality but just to deny E-cat and LENR reality.
-
Colwyn wants me to respond to some earlier issues about temperature and power. I can do that, but I agree with Alains comment:
"errors in this experiment are large"not with
"calibration at 450 proves something..."
(because as I went into in some earlier post there are too many uncertainties here to say anything)
I'll expand on those issues if required. Now to matter at hand:
About the calorimetry, the only point is whether the reevaluation of emissivity at 800-900W, and of temperature at 450W, increase enough the emitted power to get clearly above COP1.
That is certainly the main point. And I hope we agree it does not? Also I'm not sure what 450C temperature tells us other than that there are significant errors here.Quote
anyway the report is too ambiguous to conclude, not only on my hypothesis, but also on tomas hypothesis. The successful calibration is incoherent with thomas and My hypothesis.
That is not true. My hypothesis is that the experiment provides no evidence of excess heat. Since I allow error of +50% it could hardly be anything else!Quote
I prefer to base my conviction on solid evidence
1- huge and surprising isotopic shift, that is not even credible as a trick
2- having let scientist alone with the reactor is evidence of self confidence in the reactor. this eliminate conspiracy theories of all kind.
I don't go for conspiracy myself. Many LENR proponents do - as reason for lack of interest in LENR.
1. I don't understand why the surprising shift is not credible. It could be a trick, easily. Or it could be contamination. Do you remember when the last sample was "contaminated". Rossi did not say anything about contamination till long after. And we know Rossi has been using 62Ni - he said so a long time ago. So there could be some comntamination, This test was on small part of sample. Of course, I think trick more likely, but that is speculation.2. I don't understand that. If Levi (for example) is conspiring with Rossi and also leading testing noting is eliminated. And (more likely) Rossi could be misleading the testers (over IR measurement) eitehr deliberately or because he himself made a mistake. Or the testers could make this mistake independently. Or Levi in league with Rossi could be misleading the testers. All these are hypothetical but I fail to see how anything is ruled out.
Quote
3- Ferrara test which are well calibrated, even if it is with lower duration.
Yes, but in this test input power is not well measured, and there is an unknown wire in to the equipment which could easily cause anomalous measurements. In fact it is difficult to see what else its purpose is!Quote
4- ceramic melting of the reactor in ferrara which exclude normal heating.
I disagree. It is normal when electrical heaters break for there to be spot overheating. What is your evidence excluding local or even global overheating?Quote
5- pathetic mistake in the report which paradoxically exclude the conspiracy, as a fraud produce a clear, clean and expected result.
You assume that conspiracies must be clever. Rossi's errors have been various and in retrospect not clever. This one is cleverer than most. There is no need for this error to be a conspiracy - as far as thermography goes.For the isotopic shift that is a clear result, and could be deliberate fraud and/or conspiracy. Though fraud from Rossi alone looks simpler. It could also be a mistake - contamination.
Quote
note that it is absurd to use both conspiracy arguments and error arguments in the same theory.
That is not what I am doing. I am saying that there are two possible hypotheses either of which would explain the evidence. They are different. Perhaps you refer to heat being mistake and isotopic shift fraud? You need much more care to separate out what is what here, and almost any combination is possible. For example:
Rossi fradulently switched sample, uncknown to testers
Testers made a mistake in measurements, encouraged perhaps by Rossi who clearly used the tech ique first and talhked to them. I can imagine Rossi pointing out the alumina variable emissivity. He could do so in a way that seemed very helpful, and yet was very misleading.But there are many other viable permutations. Only one is true - but we cannot know which one.
Quote
If not exact, it is either a pathetic failure, or a fraud... not both.
my position is the first.
I don't understand that logicQuote
you cannot both have inverted clamps, and pathetic calorimetry.
you cannot have tweaked samples and erroneous calorimetry.
The results make inverted clamps unlikely. In principle though you could easily have both. And Rossi could be hedging his bets and hoping one or both errors would not be discovered. Certainly you can have pathetic calorimetry (probably encouraged by Rossi as above) and isotope switching.Quote
supporting both position is a clear sign that one does not care of reality but just to deny E-cat and LENR reality.
I don't understand why. As above, supporting both hypotheses is simply a logical statement that neither is contradicted by the facts. You seem to be arguing that both at once is impossible. That is true for a given error, but not for two different errors. For a given error the fact that it could be mistake or fraud just makes it more likely. You don't have to decide which.Even for a given error the thermography could be pathetic science from the testers encouraged by Rossi - who undoubtedly controlled the "measure with IR on an alumina body" conditions that sets up the pathetic error.
-
Hey, Colwyn, I will reply about DOD/CERL later. For now, can you explain to me why testing a so-called hot cat is even necessary or a good idea? The original steam temperature ecat, if you believe Levi, was ten times more powerful and about the same amount more efficient (so-called COP) on the average and 100x at peak (130kW). And while you're at it, explain to me why the esteemed Swedish
blind miceprofessors did not a) properly isolate and measure the input power on ALL wires (first experiment) and b)require full operating temperature range calibration on both experiments? And don't parrot Rossi's idiotic claim that the heater would have been damaged. Heat is heat, temperature is temperature and the thing is not affected when the reactor supposedly heats it to the top of the range. I await your explanations eagerly. And Alain's though I doubt I can understand them.Oh, almost forgot. How did the reactor continue to run just fine when all the fuel (ordinary nickel) had been converted to the ash isotope? ALL of it! You believe that too? As opposed to the fact that Rossi simply purchased the isotope and sneaked into the reactor when he was handling it during the "indipendent" testing?
-
Are these claims in your first paragraph more truths you read on Gary Wrights site? I don't have time to fact check them to understand whether they even need explaining. If the first e-cat was better insulated, the external temp would have been lower, and the COP higher. Maybe the water flow cooled it down more efficiently than radiation alone? Airbus say that running their reactor hot prevents radioactive emissions.
As for the ash, how do you know all the Ni was converted? Maybe it was just the surface of the particles. Maybe the particles as analysed were not representative of the sample.
The professors you so charmingly belittle as the 'three blind mice' (You are a calorimeter salesman??) have ruled out the possibility of a switch.
-
For openers, please read this report, which came from Mats Lewan, LENR enthusiast, participant in most of Rossi's early tests, and book author about Rossi -- and most certainly not from Gary Wright. Then, please compare the results of this test of the steam temperature ecat (done in early 2011!) with the results of the so-called Lugano test of the hot cat. Compare the claimed net ("excess") power in kW and the Q factor ("COP"). Here is the short form summary in direct quotes:
Quote“Together they ran the unit for 18 hours... It was pretty impressive in some respects. First, the repeatability... Minimum power was 15 kilowatts, and that’s a conservative value. I calculated it several times. At night we did a measurement and the device then worked very stable and produced 20 kilowatts... A flow rate of about one liter per second, equates to a peak power of 130 kilowatts. The power output was later stabilized at 15 to 20 kilowatts.
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3108242.ece
Now please explain to me why this highly efficient and powerful, simple, easy and cheap to repeat test was not repeated and instead, attention was focused exclusively on a much less powerful and efficient device (factor of 10 less at least) requiring a vastly more uncertain and complicated method of testing.
By the way, any idea what Levi's error was, most likely, and the reason why he never repeated the test? I'll be happy to tell you the most probable way Rossi cheated that particular time. It's pretty obvious in hindsight. Ah, come on... take a guess.
-
Quote
The professors you so charmingly belittle as the 'three blind mice' (You are a calorimeter salesman??) have ruled out the possibility of a switch.
Amazing! How did these august gentlemen accomplish that? Are they skilled sleight of hand stage magic experts? Actually Levi has a hobby of stage magic if memory serves. Not sure what THAT means. But seriously, exactly how did the professors rule out Rossi having put pure nickel isotope in his reactor when they were not looking or even before the experiment started (in a different compartment)?
BTW, just for the record, I have never sold a calorimeter or anything else in my life. I'm a research scientist in several fields and I have also held consultant and administrative positions with the government, academia and industry.
-
Now please explain to me why this highly efficient and powerful, simple, easy and cheap to repeat test was not repeated and instead, attention was focused exclusively on a much less powerful and efficient device (factor of 10 less at least) requiring a vastly more uncertain and complicated method of testing.
It would seem they slowed the reaction down to increase the duration of the test. A reasonable aim, seeing as nobody wants to be refuelling the thing every 18 days. "COP" (it's not a resonant system) potentially differs as I suggest above.
Are they skilled sleight of hand stage magic experts?
Is Rossi a skilled sleight of hand stage magic expert? Could Rossi have practiced his angles without knowing where the professors would be stood?and I have also held consultant and administrative positions with the government, academia and industry.
Then why demean yourself with "arguments" such as Levi "looks a bit strange"?
Colwyn
-
Sorry-- it seems I somehow managed to post the same thing twice so I deleted this one... see the next.
-
It would seem they slowed the reaction down to increase the duration of the test.
Wrong. The so-called "mega-watt plant" which Rossi claims he is now testing (in the factory of a customer of [lexicon]IH[/lexicon], ROTFWL!) is made up of nothing other than steam temperature ecats similar if not identical to the one supposedly tested by Levi. And it runs at least 6 months but they "expect" one year without refueling. That's according to Rossi. Don't you read Rossi's biblically reliable JONP?
Rossi has never said that he went to high temperature because of slowing the reaction (how does high temperature do that?). He always said the devices could run 6 months or more which they certainly could if they were fusion powered which of course they are most certainly not. They are clearly ALWAYS powered by mains power with the one exception of the time Rossi chose a gigantic Diesel generator to power a demo.
Rossi doesn't have to be a sleight of hand expert to bamboozle scientists-- they suspect nothing underhanded and won't be looking for it. All he has to do is set up the scheme ahead of time or turn his back and hide his hands for a moment while distracting the scientists' attention elsewhere. It's quite straightforward. Of course I don't know what he did. I do know that getting nothing but a single extremely rare isotope out of the reaction and all without radioactivity, is ridiculous and absurd, even if Rossi's other claims are true. If you don't realize this, you are incredibly unschooled in science in general and physics in particular.
As for Levi looking a bit strange, did I say that? Where? Of course he doesn't. Or does he? Check these out (LOL):
If the forum doesn't render these properly, just follow the links:http://i.imgur.com/SWOBb.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/pTuYU.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/tFkRoze.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/V3SwCkp.jpgThe reason I am not sure about whether or not you will see images without jumping to the hyperlink is that my system has some of the images cached. I see those but not the ones which are not. Go figger. The forum's editor is always a bit weird. You just have to roll with it.
-
I do know that getting nothing but a single extremely rare isotope out of the reaction and all without radioactivity, is ridiculous and absurd, even if Rossi's other claims are true. If you don't realize this, you are incredibly unschooled in science in general and physics in particular.
More Horganism. (Or possibly a Hodygasm?) Maybe you should devote some time to try to understand the theories that could explain this, if you are so interested in the topic. -
No point discussing the CERL report any further if you have not read it. Did you? How about, in particular, the part where Rossi got the grant and CERL spent additional millions for a test facility, predicated on the claim that Rossi had a high efficiency prototype.
It was reputed to be 10x better than anything previously available and had been tested "by the University of New Hampshire". All in the CERL report, see at the end, Rossi et al and their proposal and claims. Any idea who did that test? Where it was published? Who at U of NH saw the devices and worked with it? If so, you're a better detective than Wright and me because we can't find out. Nobody will cop to it at U of NH Physics Dept. Don't believe me, ask them yourself. Also, CERL refuses to answer even FOIA requests about that issue. Doubt it? Call them! Wright tried the FOIA -- not quite sure if they even bothered to reply. And this is or was a tax-payer funded institution which unconscionably wasted appx $9 million (about $2 million direct to Rossi, the rest spent for test facilities and in house) to chase this ridiculous boondoggle. I guess they didn't know they were dealing with a convicted felon. Ya think?
Oh and while we conjecture... a 10x more efficient thermoelectric converter would be worth billions just for the design. If it was impractical to make in quantity, as per Rossi's claim, that's just an engineering problem and there are actually engineers out there who got degrees from reputable institutions and not a degree from Kensington College like Rossi bought when it was a live diploma mill (it's closed down now by criminal charges). So there was never a valid reason for either CERL or Rossi to drop it after Rossi's supposed fire destroyed the prototype. Oh, almost forgot. Did you know where Rossi got the garbage he delivered to CERL? The non-working thermoelectric parts? From a San Diego company who bought them from a Russian company as industrial rejects. The company is identified by Wright in his web site. He called them and if you doubt the story, you can call them too.
While you have your phone in your hand, or actually by email via Youtube, contact Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson. I did. At my request, he asked Levi to repeat that memorable experiment I detailed to you. Levi, according to Josephson, would not respond to his emails. You can check that too if you don't believe me. Let's do some homework before spouting off, Colwyn.
