Lugano performance recalculated - the baseline for replications


  • ... Maybe you should devote some time to try to understand the theories that could explain this, if you are so interested in the topic.

    I am positively fascinated. Tell me where to find these theories. And I hope they don't come from word salad diarrhea specialists like Axil and the rest of the weird people on Vortex, or Lomax!


    Oh, and come on... did you see the photos of Levi? You don't think he looks just a tiny bit ... uh ... unusual?


    And if you want to appear in the slightest credible, please try responding to the actual issues with facts, links and references along with believable arguments and reasoning. I do. Can't you?

  • 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.


    No, you are spreading more lies. He says on his website that they answered a FOIA, and sent him supporting documents mentioned in the bibliography of the CERL report - including details of the university trials.


    Wright references this, did not publish them, no doubt as they would undermine his chosen narrative.

  • No, he says on his website that they answered a FOIA, and sent him supporting documents mentioned in the bibliography of the CERL report - including details of the university trials.


    Wright references this, did not publish them, no doubt as they would undermine his chosen narrative.

    Where, exactly is this wonder. I seem to have missed it. Quote and link please. (thanks)

  • I am positively fascinated. Tell me where to find these theories. And I hope they don't come from word salad diarrhea specialists like Axil and the rest of the weird people on Vortex, or Lomax!


    Maybe LENR/CANR, or perhaps the CNMS online journal. The proceedings of ICCF's, or maybe Hagelsteins MIT cold fusion 101 videos. The academic interviews section of coldfusionnow?


    Have you ever worked in a lab, nuclear project...

    I can tell you I've done quite a bit of precision calorimetry and heat flux measurement but what difference does it make? I am not and don't claim to be a specialist in either heat transfer, fluid flow or nuclear physics. I'm just a person who can sniff out fraud, illogical actions and claims, lies, and general foolery.


    I'm not sure you are qualified to judge whether Axil is writing word salads or not. The fact you call them "word salads" likely hides your inability to discuss, correct or improve his ideas.

  • Where, exactly is this wonder. I seem to have missed it. Quote and link please. (thanks)


    It's there, I promise you. I don't want to wade through the poorly written prose of Mr Wright, however after your recent debacle with the supposedly "missing" CERL report, maybe some practice with a search engine would be of benefit.


    (Try looking for the long reference number that describes the New Hampshire? university "boiler experiment" mentioned in the references of the CERL report. It's looks something like TR-00-76-GH-00 or similar). When you find a link to The Wright Stuff you can then use the "Ctrl+F" function to search the lengthy pages of half-truths for the same string.


    When you find it, why not ask him for a copy, so we can all see it? No doubt you two have something of an affinity, he won't suspect you to be fact checking him, I'm sure...


    Colwyn

  • Instead of exploring new physics why not try this approach? Use a ragoel reactor with atmospheric pressure hydrogen flow. Witness fusion at 830 C and determine that helium is the product of the reaction as well as high thermal output. This is old physics, basically how our sun works.

  • BTW a followup to my previous post. Quadrupole Residual Gas Analysers easily resolve deuterium and helium for following the fusion reacion. Samples before and after flow through the reactor can be tesed.


    We understand that the 0.0256 u difference between D2 and 4He is resolvable with a good quadrupole, but when the tiny integrated quantities of each are compared after a reasonably short period of presumed LENR.... How well then? A good LENR might have a COP of 3 and say an excess power of up to 50 watts or so, if we disregard critics for the moment. Not a very rapid accumulation of fusion product differentials, or no?


    Those working with low cost instruments might be simply overcome the issue by oxidizing D2 with say ozone, then it becomes much more readily seen as heavy water vis a vis 4He which is inert.

  • Thomas,
    may be you have already read this, but ...


    Someone under the name of Boris wrote on the JoNP:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=879&cpage=12#comment-1091953
    This guy seems to have imperfections in his English, that are not too different from those of Rossi ... anyway ...
    Thomas I "feel" you are "the criminal" of Boris's argument, what do you reckon?
    You are showing "a complete ignorance of the topic"! You'd better learn what spectral and equivalent emissivities are!


    And Rossi charges:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=879&cpage=12#comment-1091988
    "Thank you for you INSIGHT!"
    It seems the apparent replications of the H-Cat reactor are valid arguments for the correctness of the Lugano temperature estimation.


    "The concept of epsilon is not easy ... "



    The comment of Frank Ackland may suggest that actually the "concept of epsilon" is not that difficult, that he has understood, and in fact asks:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=879&cpage=12#comment-1092217

  • Wow - sorry this boris guy thinks I'm a criminal. His argument is difficult to follow. I mean, suppose I was 100% wrong. Would that make me a criminal? Why?


    And note how Rossi hedges his bets: he continues to claim the thermography works, and even is more accurate than normal calorimetry (which is absurd on alumina surfaces at high temperature) but says that also he has other ways of measurement.


    If boris, or anyone else, thinks there are errors in the paper they could come here or anywhere else and say what they are? Nothing is perfect, I'm sure there is more can be said. I guess on JONP proof by assertion is the preferred mode of debate.

  • Wow - sorry this boris guy thinks I'm a criminal. His argument is difficult to follow. I mean, suppose I was 100% wrong. Would that make me a criminal? Why?


    And note how Rossi hedges his bets: he continues to claim the thermography works, and even is more accurate than normal calorimetry (which is absurd on alumina surfaces at high temperature) but says that also he has other ways of measurement.


    If boris, or anyone else, thinks there are errors in the paper they could come here or anywhere else and say what they are? Nothing is perfect, I'm sure there is more can be said. I guess on JONP proof by assertion is the preferred mode of debate.



    I appreciate your analysis, as do several if not many here. And I'm sympathetic with your points above.


    But, I suspect "proof by assertion" might be a step or two better than "proof by censorship". Unfortunately for physics, the CF folks did not start the censorship business. As Noam Chomsky likes to point out recently, referring to drones, germ warfare, poison gas and so on, that the use of any weapon will eventually result in it being used on the originator {I paraphrase]. Well, of course Chomsky has said a lot things that have turned out to be right as well as quite a few wrong. But the principle of not throwing stones from a glass house might be nearly eternal. Or from philosophy, a field dear to you apparently, Kant's categorical imperative, as I learned it in English: "Act as though the maxim of your action were to become a universal".


    Whoops, it's already Monday.... sermon over.

  • @colwyn


    It's hardly worth the trouble to argue with you since you never respond directly to questions and comments. Here's what Wright wrote about the thermoelectric fiasco (and he underestimates the cost-- elsewhere I saw $9 million total including the two million to Rossi discussed below).



    Does it still sound like Wright got good answers from FOIA requests? Does it sound like he refused to discuss the results?


  • I apologize to other readers of this string for this off topic issue.


    Glad you reminded me of part 3. It includes this quote:


    Quote

    We contacted Hi-Z Technology, Inc in San Diego, California. At first they were hesitant to answer our question if Rossi or Leonardo Technologies Inc. had in fact purchased any modules. After awhile they did confirm that Rossi had purchased a few modules from them.


    And this from the now removed CERL report (yes, it's still available because CERL was unable to get it removed from public and private archives including Rothwell and Krivit's web sites):


    Quote

    “Nineteen of 27 TE Devices shipped to CTC, Johnstown, PA, were incapable of generating electricity for a variety of reasons, from mechanical failure to poor workmanship. The remaining eight produced less than 1 watt of power each, significantly less than the expected 800–1000 watts each.”

    ROTFWL! "Signifiantly less"? How about TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE LESS? Worthless junk just like the ecat fugitives from a plumbing scrap heap.


    And you reminded me: Rossi used the same scam tactics early on with the ecat when he said that it was tested by universities (it wasn't) just like he said the TE devices were, and he would use robotic devices to produce them (never the slightest evidence of any use of robotics by Rossi or LTI):


    Quote

    Robotics are used for mass production.


    So basically, the TE scam was the prototype for the ecat scam. Thanks for the reminder.


    No, Colwyn, Wright never reported on the last documents he asked for. I presume he never got them.


    So tell me, why do YOU think Rossi had a Nobel-worthy discovery of highly efficient and inexpensive (LTI/Rossi claims) thermoelectric devices and then actually delivered (for $1.8 million of tax payer money) non-working devices he purchased, which were rejects from a Russian manufacturer? That sound honest to you? That's not a scam to you?


    You won't respond to a direct question. You never do. Engaging you in debate is a total waste of time and forum space.

  • Mary,


    Gary Wright received a tranche of FOIA documents from the DOD regarding Task: DE-AT01-98FE65489, here which according to the DOD/CERL report, detailed Rossi's tests of an exceptionally efficient thermoelectric converter at New Hampshire university.


    So I take exception to your claim that CERL refuse FOIA requests on the matter. I point this out because it is one of many examples that create doubt about your claim that you:


    Quote

    respond to the actual issues with facts, links and references along with believable arguments and reasoning. I do.


    But then you compound your errors by saying:


    And this from the now removed CERL report (yes, it's still available because CERL was unable to get it removed from public and private archives including Rothwell and Krivit's web sites):


    Even though I previously posted a link to a DOD search engine displaying a copy of the report. For your convenience, I shall post it again: http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/en_US/default/search/results?qu=thermoelectric&rm=CONSTRUCTION+E0%7C%7C%7C1%7C%7C%7C1%7C%7C%7Ctrue&te=ASSET It's right there, first hit on the 'CERL publications' section of an Army website. A very reckless attempt at a cover-up, for sure.


    I don't answer your questions because the inherent fact checking required, to understand your miscomprehensions of dodgy sources takes too much time. It truly is a trip down the rabbit hole.


    And to have the chutzpah to apologize for the off-topic nature of this, is a bit rich, seeing as nearly every single one of your posts on this thread has been off topic, the nadir of which involved several pictures of Levi.


    Even Thomas Clarke, who's thread you defile, dropped a couple of hints regarding your polarizing accusations of fraud, and your obnoxious (Thomas, in his elegance, probably chose a much better word) manner.

  • Gary Wright received a tranche of FOIA documents from the DOD regarding Task: DE-AT01-98FE65489, here



    A common error which is why I didn't understand where you were pointing. You are looking at nothing but "Rossi (and LTI which was mostly Rossi) says".


    I ask you again: have you read the CERL report?


    When you do, it is clear that CERL relied entirely on "Rossi says" which is the only positive portrayal of testing in Gary's third report. Otherwise please tell me from what you think is Gary's report:


    Who, at U of NH, tested Rossi's highly efficient thermoelectric converter? Have a name? A publication other than Rossi/LTI?


    What were the quantitative findings on which expenditure of $3M ($9M per other sources) was justified?


    If you just tell me who this mystery tester was, assuming it's somebody reputable like a professor and not a janitor, I will be happy to contact and interview them. But then, you don't know, do you? Because everything CERL relied on came to them through and from Rossi. And Rossi, as usual, was lying. And what Gary wrote down and what you are referring to was simply what Rossi said. Read the flipping report!


    Did I miss something? Cite it please.


    As for the deletions of the original report, CERL can only delete its own web pages and references which it did. It can't interfere with Army publications or with other government information depositories or private collections. After all, the supposed work was done with tax payer money and is in no way classified. CERL did everything they could to distance themselves from this putrid piece of garbage. I am sure if they could have done more, they would have. What they SHOULD have done was to publish in the open literature a case history as a warning of what happens when you spend millions of dollars on nothing but the word of a convicted felon and con man.


    several pictures of Levi.


    Hilarious, aren't they? Perhaps if I knew Levi, I'd feel sorry for him but since I don't, he's just comedy. If you liked those, you might enjoy these captioned and chopped photos:


    http://www.moletrap.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Rossicaptions


    I notice you don't address either the results or the source of Rossi's thermoelectric "devices". That's what proves the fraud. In addition to which, Rossi claims he dropped the project because the devices had to be hand made by him and "the position of a few atoms was significant". That's ridiculous on its face. If the device ever worked, it would be worth billions and dozens of people and companies would be eager to do the engineering required to make it practical. NOBODY sane and truthful would ever drop such a device if it were real which it clearly was not.


    Don't believe Gary, call the company! Don't believe me that Levi wouldn't reply to Josephson's email about his test? Ask him (he's a very kind gentleman and rapidly and politely answered my inquiry through Youtube comments). Also his contact info is on his web site.

  • colwyn wrote:
    Gary Wright received a tranche of FOIA documents from the DOD regarding Task: DE-AT01-98FE65489, here


    A common error which is why I didn't understand where you were pointing. You are looking at nothing but "Rossi (and LTI which was mostly Rossi) says".


    NO - wrong again. As stated in the CERL report, DE-AT01-98FE65489, is a group of three reports by a person named C.L. Munson at the University of New Hampshire. Someone called Parsons managed the project at the DOD. The CERL report says this about it:


    Quote

    As part of a Department of Energy project titled, “Assessment of Efficiency Increases and Economics of Application of Thermoelectric Apparatus in Fossil Power Plants” (Task DE-AT01-98FE65489, TD No. 15), a small prototype TE Device manufactured by Dr. Andre Rossi was tested at the University of New Hampshire in 2000. This TE Device demonstrated significant power generation (100 watts continuous) and a thermal to electrical conversion efficiency of 16 percent. These results could not be duplicated during this effort. LTI is continuing research and development work to achieve the TE Device level of operation demonstrated in the Parsons study.


    Despite what you say, Gary Wright has received these documents from a FOIA request. He says:



    Gary Wright likely has all three papers (that's how FOIA works), but chooses to only quote from, and publish one of them. I believe he does this because information contained in the others disagrees with the narrative that he is paid to write.


    The original DOD website that CERL published the report to in 2005 was closed own in 2012, as I showed in my very first post to you two or three pages back. The report was available until its demise. After the website closed, the DOD moved it to its new home, which I linked above. All this information is available from the Internet Archive. Link here: web.archive.org/web/*/dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil


    Nearly everything you say is provably wrong. Is this by accident or design?


    The CERL report then goes on to explain the reasons why "These results could not be duplicated during this effort":


    Quote

    In an effort to determine, and possibly correct the reasons for TE Device failures, LTI personnel traveled to the Italian laboratory. The common theme that began to emerge was the inability to upgrade from small-scale TE modules to largescale multiple module TE Devices with large footprints. The most fundamental reason for the LTI second-generation TE Devices’ failure was the complex thermal expansion interplay among the various components. Contributing to the TE Device failure were the large number of soldered electrical connections (over 80), the inability to match the thermal expansion rates of the mono-block cooling tanks to the circuit boards and to the semiconductor materials, all within the clamp pressure or the retaining hardware in the grip of high temperature adhesives

  • I guess the value of this string, if it has any, is to demonstrate why Rossi can scam people so easily with such silly stuff -- believers do not get it!


    NO - wrong again. As stated in the CERL report, DE-AT01-98FE65489, is a group of three reports by a person named C.L. Munson at the University of New Hampshire. Someone called Parsons managed the project at the DOD. The CERL report says this about it:


    If you had bothered to read the actual 150+page CERL report and appendixes and knew anything about the industry, you'd realize that Parsons wasn't "someone," it was a research company. Munson worked for Parsons, not U of NH and Parsons had nothing to do with U of NH. I don't know the details of their involvement with Rossi but I suspect they were simply another of Rossi's marks -- Munson and Parsons were bamboozled by Rossi. 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. So, with your superior search skills, maybe you can find that report so we can read it?


    As part of a Department of Energy project titled, “Assessment of Efficiency Increases and Economics of Application of Thermoelectric Apparatus in Fossil Power Plants” (Task DE-AT01-98FE65489, TD No. 15), a small prototype TE Device manufactured by Dr. Andre Rossi was tested at the University of New Hampshire in 2000. This TE Device demonstrated significant power generation (100 watts continuous) and a thermal to electrical conversion efficiency of 16 percent. These results could not be duplicated during this effort. LTI is continuing research and development work to achieve the TE Device level of operation demonstrated in the Parsons study.


    LTI *is* Rossi's company. Anything said by LTI is told to them by Rossi. The story about the small prototype device etc. etc. is ALL FROM ROSSI. NONE is from the U of NH. Find me a single person at an appropriate level who tested the device at U of NH. You can't because there was none. U of NH was never involved. Rossi *claims* that he used their heating plant to test his device but there is no evidence for this ANYWHERE. In fact, other than LTI claims (which are Rossi claims) and a report from Parsons, almost certainly based on "Rossi says", there is no evidence the claimed device ever existed. And if it had, it would have been worth untold millions of dollars and would have been remade after the fire. Instead, the whole thing was swept under the rug and ignored. That would have never happened if the device had been real. It would be too important and valuable. Obviously, you know so little about thermoelectric devices, you don't realize that.


    The most fundamental reason for the LTI second-generation TE Devices’ failure was the complex thermal expansion interplay among the various components. Contributing to the TE Device failure were the large number of soldered electrical connections (over 80), the inability to match the thermal expansion rates of the mono-block cooling tanks to the circuit boards and to the semiconductor materials, all within the clamp pressure or the retaining hardware in the grip of high temperature adhesives


    Total garbage and pure conjecture. I've been personally involved in the design of Seebeck effect devices, not for energy generation at which they work but are inefficient, but for heat flux transducers and calorimeters for which they are outstanding (stable, sensitive and easily calibrated). They do not require soldered connections (one design uses printed circuits with plated through holes and plated wiring). But if you do make them with soldered junctions (like Storms did), there is nothing to it. 80 solder joints a problem? In what universe? Any idea how many solder connections in a consumer computer? As for thermal expansion, that may be an issue, I don't know. It's no issue for properly designed Seebeck heat flux transducers. And, after all, how did Rossi surmount this issue with his prototype? Didn't anyone at CERL consult Rossi about this? Perhaps not. One theory is that he was in custody at the time in Italy. In the pokey! Anyway, these are silly objections. They are simple engineering problems which a multimillion dollar program should easily solve -- if the prototype existed, which I am certain it couldn't have and didn't. If the prototype had been real, you would have read about its characteristics. CERL would have obtained and studied it (or a remake if it got burned). We'd know all its parameters. Instead, all that remains is one blurry and questionable image from -- get this -- Rossi.


    Nothing I said about this whole misadventure is wrong. DOD didn't "relocate" the report. Archive copies are always kept. CERL deleted its web site out of embarrassment right about the time Wright and others started to look into Rossi's crooked past. Coincidence? I don't think so. Doubt it? Go interview them. If you can find the authors of the report and they will talk with you about it. They won't.


    Finally, when Rossi talks about the project, nothing makes any sense. He never mentions buying the bad parts from the San Diego company which admitted selling them to him. He claims the prototype was hand made and every molecule and atom had to be just right suggesting they were somehow adjusted by him (idiotic claim). Even if so, there was no credible reason for not doing it again. He said it took about 3000 hours. So what? It would have been worth almost as much as a working ecat. Of course we will never see ANY device of Rossi's working except for a scamming machine and that's what he is.


    Rossi's scamming method is not different in the ecat compared to thermoelectrics. He still claimed early on that his ecat had been tested by universities-- it hadn't. Still hasn't been. He claimed robotic manufacturing for both devices but it doesn't exist and never happened. Similar scam but this time, he found dumber and less cautious marks. CERL, initially bamboozled by Rossi, realized he was a crook, cut their losses and tried to bury the whole mess. [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] won't be that lucky because of all that has been written about Rossi since by Krivit, Wright, Pomp, Clarke and others.


    By the way, did you ever see the high precision tool kit Rossi's elderly mechanic used to put together early ecats (those pieces of junk pipe -- rejects from toilet making)? Think he used the same one to adjust molecules? Courtesy of Krivit who took the image inside Rossi's Italian "factory" (it was the only tools he saw there):


  • Munson worked for Parsons, not U of NH and Parsons had nothing to do with U of NH.


    So what you are saying was that there was an independent test, performed by Parsons at the University of New Hampshire. Fair enough.



    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.


    If you haven't seen it, then how can you possibly disagree with what's been written in the CERL report about it?? (See the quotes in my post above). Your whole theory is a figment of your imagination. Down the rabbit hole yet again. (How many impossible things did you believe before breakfast?)



    So, with your superior search skills, maybe you can find that report so we can read it?


    I've told you three times: Your mate/brother-in-lies/messiah Gary Wright has a copy. Ask him and quit whining. Or FOIA the DOD, you share a country with them.


    CERL deleted its web site out of embarrassment


    Where do you get your information from? (*Your own head, obviously) They deleted their whole website over a couple of phone calls? Don't be silly, Alice.


    The fact is, they never had their own independent website, they published their material on a DOD portal between 2005 and 2012, and another DOD portal after that.