If anybody wants a nostalgic souvenir, the contents of the Steorn lab, and a lot of 'Monkey Face' cases are being auctioned off, presumably on the instruction of the liquidator.
Steorn Orbo, suddenly said not to be supplying power forever.
-
-
Like it or not, at some point people will have to honor Mary Yugo. There's something to be said about batting 1.000
Sniffex, Rosch, Defkalion, Steorn, everything at PESN. Am I missing somebody?
Next up on the lineup:
Rossi
Bulls**t Light Power
-
Like it or not, at some point people will have to honor Mary Yugo. There's something to be said about batting 1.000
Mary's approach is fairly straightforward: rush in like a bulldog and call out anyone making overunity or other hard-to-believe claims without providing suitable evidence, especially if they're raising funding. And although she can be aggressive and abrasive, ultimately I think she's on the right track. People should expect this kind of attention if they are evasive and seek to carefully stage-manage things (although I doubt the people who attract her attention care all that much).
-
If anybody wants a nostalgic souvenir, the contents of the Steorn lab, and a lot of 'Monkey Face' cases are being auctioned off, presumably on the instruction of the liquidator
Lot No: 23 : Pablo Picasso Lithograph I limited edition framed and glazed Lithograph
Lot No: 24 : Full size Replica Suit of Armour incorporating candle shelf within the pierced metal Torso complete with Shield and Axe
Sounds like some drunken ebaying took place if you ask me.
Like it or not, at some point people will have to honor Mary Yugo. There's something to be said about batting 1.000
Considering that heshe had a limited technical education, glorifies in not reading relevent science papers, and has a propensity for breaking the law in the process, heshe ain't doing too bad, I guess.
-
"Considering that heshe had a limited technical education"
Sh/e knows more about thermodynamics that you'll ever learn.
"glorifies in not reading relevent science papers," (it's "relevant", BTW)
Why read papers from people who, if they had done what they said they have done, would have the Nobel Prize tied up?
"and has a propensity for breaking the law in the process, heshe ain't doing too bad, I guess."
No, s/he has exposed people like Sniffex who have caused many deaths with their fake technology. Rossi and BLP only cost morons their money, Sniffex actually killed people.
-
The "s/he" stuff is getting close to doxxing, which we don't like. Don't think about whether you like MY. Think about whether you yourself wish to be protected from doxxing, which most of you do, I assume.
-
You need to move with the times Eric - I support gender neutral pronouns for all.
Sh/e knows more about thermodynamics that you'll ever learn.
You'd be surprised at what's on my CV. And until relatively recently, Mary thought "Q" was interchangeable with "Q factor"!Why read papers from people who, if they had done what they said they have done, would have the Nobel Prize tied up?
Indeed, why read anything at all?
No
Ermm, clearly Yes. Even Abd agreed. (sort of, see "Physician Heal Thyself" - a brilliant title)
-
Quote
Mary's approach is fairly straightforward: rush in like a bulldog and call out anyone making overunity or other hard-to-believe claims without providing suitable evidence, especially if they're raising funding. And although she can be aggressive and abrasive, ultimately I think she's on the right track. People should expect this kind of attention if they are evasive and seek to carefully stage-manage things (although I doubt the people who attract her attention care all that much).
You could not be more wrong. I hardly rush. I also don't call out people simply on lack of evidence. Everyone I called out gave plentiful evidence of being a scammer. Some classic evidence. My skill (one of them) is identifying these claims and their resemblance to previous scams. Actually, the only reason I took an interest in Sniffex, Steorn and Rossi is that I was fascinated by the claim and the possibility it could be true and the far reaching consequences if it were true. Looking closer, I immediately saw the issues and problems with verifying the claims and unlikely way that the products were being developed and promoted. Only after a very close look and lots of discussion and attempts to get comments from them directly did I proclaim them probable frauds.
QuoteYou'd be surprised at what's on my CV.
Maybe and maybe not. Some very educated and accomplished people -- for example Dr. Brian Josephson as well as Drs. Targ and Puthoff -- are easily fooled by clever cons that they wish were true. Tar and Puthoff, and even the illustrious journal Nature, were made fools of by the obvious charlatan and fraud, Uri Geller.
QuoteAnd until relatively recently, Mary thought "Q" was interchangeable with "Q factor"!
Where in the world did THAT weirdness come from? I don't recall ever addressing either of those, anyway not by those names/symbols. I have commented about the inanity of calling a power ratio (out/in) a "COP" and about the idiotic use of redundant dimensions like kW hrs per hour when what is intended is simply "average power" over a time interval. Perhaps that confused you. Sort of like the difference between claims and facts seems to be something you have never grasped despite whatever education you claim to have.
As for reading complex theories by Mills and others, I just could not care less and I certainly will not waste the time, not to mention these are out of my area and I would have to struggle and do lots of extra work if I had any hope to understand them. What I examine are CLAIMS and I compare those with PERFORMANCE. Sniffex, Steorn, Defkalion, Rossi, Brillouin, Goldes and Mills are all claims -- some the same claims for decades. And none of these people submitted these claims for proper verification by appropriate companies or agencies. And none ever sold any product whatever to any customer who could and did properly test them. Except maybe Rossi with his one customer IH and we see how that turned out.
Thanks, Sherlock, and those who upvoted the comment for the acknowledgement.
-
Quote
If anybody wants a nostalgic souvenir, the contents of the Steorn lab, and a lot of 'Monkey Face' cases are being auctioned off, presumably on the instruction of the liquidator.
Pity they didn't use eBay so I could bid on some of the monkey faces. I actually have a good clone of a Sniffex device which I purchased on eBay. I also got one for James Randi. They were sold for $25 the purpose of tracking golf balls (WTF!). I would love to have an Orbo or an ecat in my collection.
-
And until relatively recently, Mary thought "Q" was interchangeable with "Q factor"!
Where in the world did THAT weirdness come from? I don't recall ever addressing either of those, anyway not by those names/symbols.
What Exactly Is Rossi’s “Mme Curie” Reactor — A Direct Source of Electricity?
The top link is where you unilaterally declare Q "is NOT standard parlance in heat transfer or anywhere else". Despite the fact that seconds earlier you quoted a Wikipedia page that (in agreement with thermodynamics textbooks everywhere) liberally uses Q to denote "an amount of heat"!... How utterly stupid of you!
Lugano performance recalculated - the baseline for replications
The second link is where, 2 months before that, you mixed up COP and Q factor (a measure of resonance)... Probably because you saw COP defined as Qout/Qin somewhere. ....D'oh!
-
Dead link ...deleted post?
-
Fixed. Quotation marks in the search string were messing up the links.
-
It was such a minor non-issue and it was in 2015 so I forgot about it. But once more, here is what I wrote which you totally, and as usual, misunderstood and misread:
QuoteApparently Clarke (or someone else) used "Q" to represent the ratio of output power to input power in a supposed LENR device. I asked about it because it is NOT standard parlance in heat transfer or anywhere else. Q is most often a reference to a parameter in an electrical circuit which I will let you look up. You act like a dunce so you probably won't do it.
What I pointed out was: Whoever (Clarke maybe?) used "Q" used it with reference to heat transfer and as a figure of merit, probably P(out)/P(in). This is inappropriate. Q in heat transfer is conventionally not a figure of merit. It's a measure of flux as:
QuoteObviously, YOU have not the slightest idea about the usual usage of "Q" in heat transfer parlance. Here is the definition of "Q" ETA: from Wikepedia (link below)--
Quote The total amount of energy transferred as heat is conventionally written as Q (from Quantity) for algebraic purposes.[32] Heat released by a system into its surroundings is by convention a negative quantity (Q < 0); when a system absorbs heat from its surroundings, it is positive (Q > 0). Heat transfer rate, or heat flow per unit time, is denoted by (see link for symbol) . This should not be confused with a time derivative of a function of state (which can also be written with the dot notation) since heat is not a function of state.[33] Heat flux is defined as rate of heat transfer per unit cross-sectional area, resulting in the unit watts per square metre.
All of this is entirely peripheral but if you must continue to perseverate about it, perseverate correctly.
-
I highly doubt that Thomas Clarke, an experienced engineer, would use Q to represent COP.
It's a measure of flux as:
heat flux is something entirely different* you loon. And it's denoted with a small 'q', not 'Q'.And you claim to be a world class expert in calorimetry!!!!!
* As stated in your Wikipedia quote in the post directly above this. Do you even understand what you're copy/pasting?
-
Say wot?
QuoteThe total amount of energy transferred as heat is conventionally written as Q (from Quantity) for algebraic purposes.[32] Heat released by a system into its surroundings is by convention a negative quantity (Q < 0); when a system absorbs heat from its surroundings, it is positive (Q > 0). Heat transfer rate, or heat flow per unit time, is denoted by {\displaystyle {\dot {Q}}}
. This should not be confused with a time derivative of a function of state (which can also be written with the dot notation) since heat is not a function of state.[33] Heat flux is defined as rate of heat transfer per unit cross-sectional area, resulting in the unit watts per square metre.
From that Wikipedia article.
If you had said that "heat flux" is obsolete terminology, I might have had to agree with you and I did misuse "heat flux" where I meant total heat energy . The flux is, of course, as defined above,
The points I originally made that Q in heat transfer is not a figure of merit and that COP is an HVAC term that is inappropriately used in LENR parlance to mean power ratio out/in still stands. And Zeus as always misconscrews everything including most especially the possibility that Rossi has anything or ever had anything at any time in his life, which was of any value or any sort of contribution.
OK-- I can't get this to display correctly in this editor so I will stop trying. I will also stop arguing with Zeus because arguing with Zeus and ele is sort of like talking to a wall.
QuoteIn many writings in this context, the term "heat flux" is used when what is meant is therefore more accurately called diffusive flux of internal energy; such usage of the term "heat flux" is a residue of older and now obsolete language usage that allowed that a body may have a "heat content".[26]
Also from the Wikipedia article. Incidentally, I don't recall saying I am a "world class" anything. I said if I am who people who were doxxing characterize me as, then I was a world class calorimetry expert. Not quite the same thing. The reality is that my field is neither heat transfer nor fluid flow but what I do have is extensive experience with calorimetry in the range of power appropriate for what Rossi was doing, albeit in an entirely different setting. And it hardly takes a world class expert to recognize that Rossi and Defkalion were scamming from the very beginning. Both of their scams had every classic hallmark.
And of course, Zeus loves to wallow in irreleventia. None of this has the slightest to do with the incontrovertible facts that Rossi is a convicted criminal con man and has never produced any viable technology whatever except for low grade scams which fool mainly the gullible.
-
I fail to see how the science of heat transfer is irrelevant, especially when people are confused enough to think that you are some kind of expert.
If you had said that "heat flux" is obsolete terminology, I might have had to agree with you and I did misuse "heat flux" where I meant total energy. The flux is, of course, Q/t.
"Heat flux" is Q/Time.Area... Not Q/time.
And it's not obsolete terminology: There is literally no other accepted way of (briefly) saying "the rate of heat energy transfer through a given surface per unit time".
Please find me an example if you somehow disagree with this.
I don't recall saying I am a "world class" anything. I said if I am who people who were doxxing said I was, then I was a world class calorimetry expert. Not quite the same thing.
^ An unexpectedly high degree of nuance for a maryyugo statement.
And of course, Zeus loves to wallow in irreleventia. None of this has the slightest to do with the incontrovertible facts that Rossi is a convicted criminal con man and has never produced any viable technology whatever except for low grade scams which fool mainly the gullible.
And how is Rossi relevant to a Steorn thread you chump?
-
"Heat flux" is Q/Time.Area... Not Q/time.
Strictly speaking "flux" refers to flow rate Q/t. "Flux density" is flow rate per unit area. But "flux density" is often shortened to "flux" where context makes the meaning clear.
Heat flux (according to wikipedia) is heat flow through a given surface, and measured in watts; hence q/t. Heat flux *density* has SI units of W/m^2.
The entry on radiant flux is more explicit, defining radiant flux as dq/dt, and giving a table showing clearly that flux is measured in watts, whereas flux density in W/m^2.
QuoteThere is literally no other accepted way of (briefly) saying "the rate of heat energy transfer through a given surface per unit time".
"Heat flow rate" serves nicely and not much less brief. But I agree, "flux" is not an obsolete term.
And "through a *given* surface" does not mean "per unit area". Quite the contrary.
-
Quote
And how is Rossi relevant to a Steorn thread you chump?
Because both are classical free energy fraud schemes in every imaginable way. BTW, doesn't calling people names get you banned?
-
And "through a *given* surface" does not mean "per unit area". Quite the contrary.
Yes, my mistake. Although, in my defence, I just copied it from here.
Strictly speaking "flux" refers to flow rate Q/t. "Flux density" is flow rate per unit area. But "flux density" is often shortened to "flux" where context makes the meaning clear.
True. I should have properly said 'heat flux density'. That maybe would have avoided the error above, and perhaps this is what Mary means by 'heat flux' being an obsolete term.
Heat flux (according to wikipedia) is heat flow through a given surface, and measured in watts; hence q/t. Heat flux *density* has SI units of W/m^2.
Do you mean Q/t?
Assuming q = 'heat flux density' = Q/A.t -
doesn't calling people names get you banned?
That's a term of endearment in my book.
