Randombit0 took the photo from someone named "Katelyn Friedson". You can search on Google images and see that her photo is a good match for Ms. Friedson. I don't think the photo has anything to do with the randombit0. I welcome more scientific discussions and ramdombit0 seems to know something about current clamps. Good enough.
Mr. Weaver, looking forward to the June 4th and July 4th data releases.
So, do you, anonymous, think Randombit9 is too good at EE to look that much like a model?
Randombit0 took the photo from someone named "Katelyn Friedson". You can search on Google images and see that her photo is a good match for Ms. Friedson. I don't think the photo has anything to do with the randombit0.
Yes, clearly.
How are you making that judgement, with all due respect? Is it impossible that a BA in English precludes one from having grown up doing electrical engineering at a high level?
Randombit0? To me the name sounds just like noise with no information value.
And her information about power factor is noise. The load being resistive the power factor is 1.
@Branzell you forgot the FUSION generator, the pulsed current and the coil that certainly have an impedance.
Yes they certainly do. And noisy too. A wonderful terrible noise.
How are you making that judgement, with all due respect? Is it impossible that a BA in English precludes one from having grown up doing electrical engineering at a high level?
There are several hints; but the simplest is that randombit0 is not a native English speaker, and Katelyn Friedson surely is, as can be seen from her LinkedIn profile and links from it.
Poor Katelyn, being dragged into this dark corner of the interweb. I hope nobody else has the same misfortune.
Dear Ms. randombit0,
QuoteAvoid any speculation here, or otherwise we can speculate that you have an agenda .
I can't see the link. I speculate less than most since I have non-speculative points to make, whereas those such as JoshG with speculative theories have only speculation. I am viewed as having an agenda by many who don't like that I articulate clearly the (non-speculative) facts so far that strongly support IH's statements and do not support Rossi's.
I'd say that is because they - notably Sifferkoll - have an agenda 
I detect that from Sifferkoll's blog statements, and the fact that in several comments on Mats site he stated this, saying that he was on Rossi's side here. (JoshG - I hope you'll trust me on this - but anyone unsure can answer yes or no by checking the entirety of Sifferkoll's comments on Mats two "animpossibleinvention" recent threads).
Personally I think speculation is fine as long as it is correctly labelled - as I did.
QuoteFrom what I see the rest of your post is a personal attack against Levi.
Perhaps you could clarify? I have also never met him - and have no personal animosity - nor do I speculate about his character.
QuoteI have never met him
Which I guess means that you too are less likely to have personal feelings here.
Quotebut reading his public curriculum I see he has been awarded by a PhD in Sub nuclear Physics, a Post Doc and a permanent tenure as Assistant Professor in Physics.
I do note that. I also note that a PhD in nuclear physics has no direct relevance to competence in test methodology or thermography or electrical measurements. One feature of Rossi's LENR devices is that they require no shielding (it would seem from the Lugano test, and Rossi's formal replies to US regulatory inspectors) and share no characteristics with conventional nuclear technology. So nuclear expertise is irrelevant in the testing of Rossi's devices: though it might make such a person interested in the topic of LENR. Without more information on his research (or teaching) activity we would not be able to tell what relevance this experience has to the job at hand.
But in any case I find argument from authority is unreliable. Academic qualifications - unless they are recent and very precisely aligned to the job at hand - give no guarantee of competence. That is partly because academic work in "Physics" for example is so very varied. And partly because testing involves very specific skills.
And of course facts - as below - trump any speculative judgement of competence based on credentials.
QuoteAnd again Mr. Clarke avoid generic and unscientific phrasing. If you have any real argument, not a speculation, not an hypothesis a real scientific and correct argument state it.
Perhaps you could be explicit (I find this a very useful scientific style of argument), and identify said generic, or unscientific, phrasing? Then I could reflect on your advice?
As for real arguments you could look back over this thread. You will find that most of my contribution is indeed real argument.
My two here, made in detail earlier, are:
(1) FACT. Penon has put his name to a test report so far from normal professional standards that his competence as a tester cannot be supposed. We could look at details if you like: they are strong.
(2) FACT. Levi has replied to a clear scientific critique of his Lugano thermography with an argument (made to Mats) that clearly shows he does not understand the topic, and is consistent with his making the mistake that I and many others have noted, in the Lugano test report. Everyone can make a mistake, but persisting in a mistake when it is pointed out shows a lack of critical reflection. In this case it is a very big mistake.
(3) FACT. Levi reported from an early Rossi test, which he conducted alone, a flow rate 40% higher than the maximum physically possible from the pump which, he reported, had recently been tested.
Unlike some others, who would speculate on such facts, I merely note them and therefore conclude that both of these gentlemen have shown themselves unfitted to conduct reliable testing on Rossi devices. I cannot say they have not improved, over time, (except that Levi clearly had not at the recent date of his reply to Mats about Lugano), but the historic record would surely mean no rational person could rely on their work in this area?
Best wishes,
and thanks for the polite language - refreshing to hear,
Tom
Nice avatar. The nick is however a joke (understandable by Italians only) as it recalls the word Rimbambito which is Italian for Dotard or Senile. So I suggest you add something pertinent. For example the numbers could be overlapped to an ample balding forehead. You may choose the most appropriate but I suggest you pick from the LENR+ community so that we do not drag other innocents "into this dark corner of the interweb".
Where I have been ? In a laboratory that is extremely interested in new technology.
Is quite a shame that so much junk information populate discussions in the net. Seems that people like, or have interest to, create a parallel ( fake ) reality.
I'm here to try a real scientific discussion. And eventually remove some junk information.
My wellcome greetings for a new member, which is reading reports others are just second hand commenting...
Here a summary of Clarks & other spins claims, which are simply gossip honk.
1 Rossi manipulated the test...
→ Rossi only had about five short show ups on stage and was only allowed to switch power on and put in /take out fuel. All under tight control of the experimenters.
2 Rossi manipulated fuel-
→ Of course did Rossi manipulate the fuel .. prior to the test, but other call this preparation of fuel...
The experimenters took their probes prior to the test and after the test.
The experimenters planted their fuel probe in a way they would detect any manipulations by Rossi...
3 Freaky wave forms give other measurements results:
→ The report states clearly that they did not use the chopping, opposite to prior tests (Bologna). Further on they did run the reactor for 10 days in low power mode. Thus initially no freaky wave forms were present. The current used, was a bit less than 60 Amps for the heating. Its written there.
4 Emissivity over estimated.
→ The team did a calibration run with an empty reactor – just heating with the very same current as in the main run, measuring with the same instruments. Thus any Clark & others claims regarding the first 10 days of the test are simply chunk.
5 What happens after 10 days can be questioned, because for this no calibration run exists. Whether the COP was 2.7 or 3.7 is not clear.
Thus from the very first 10 days which were run with high standards we can conclude:
LENR happened
LENR produce massive excess heat. COP > 3
LENR produced the expected transmutations.
Conclusion: Please discuss only the first 10 days of the test because this phase is reliably documented!!
Dear Wyttenbach,
It is with pleasure that I read your views here. When given precise comments it is possible to engage with argument. I hope you will be able to read my replies and then attempt to explain how your original points (especially 4. and 5.) remain valid?
A preliminary point. My comment on the Lugano report does not consider spin. It shows a technical error in a scientific report. Any spin added would be from somone else - with the exception of my postword where I regret the lack of reply or retraction from the authors. You should perhaps disregard the postword which is not directly relevant and might be viewed as spin.
What is "gossip honk" and which parts of my comment constitute this?
Quote from WyttenbachHere a summary of Clarks & other spins claims, which are simply gossip honk.1 Rossi manipulated the test...→ Rossi only had about five short show ups on stage and was only allowed to switch power on and put in /take out fuel. All under tight control of the experimenters.
I think you refer to the chain of custody of the fuel/reactor/ash. You have no evidence for this great confidence. What we do know (from mats book) is that Rossi was present for approximately 1 week of the total test time, mostly at start and end. How can the independent testers be sure during all of that period there was never some manipulation? And further, one of these testers was Levi with a previous strong relationship with Rossi - and none of the testers were looking for any subterfuge (nor were they qualified to spot it had they been looking for it!). 5 second is all that is needed to do a substitution!
Add to that Rossi's admitted history of providing manipulated samples for testing, and the fact that the unusual isotopic result matches commercially available 62Ni that Rossi is known to have bought.
Your confidence here is misplaced!
Quote from W2 Rossi manipulated fuel-→ Of course did Rossi manipulate the fuel .. prior to the test, but other call this preparation of fuel...The experimenters took their probes prior to the test and after the test.The experimenters planted their fuel probe in a way they would detect any manipulations by Rossi...
My previous answer covers the general issue of the anomalous fuel isotopic results. I don't understand this point. Exactly how Rossi manipulated the fuel/reactor/ash to make isoytopic change between the initial fuel and final ash I cannot speculate - there are too many possibles given the lack of information.
Quote from W3 Freaky wave forms give other measurements results:→ The report states clearly that they did not use the chopping, opposite to prior tests (Bologna). Further on they did run the reactor for 10 days in low power mode. Thus initially no freaky wave forms were present. The current used, was a bit less than 60 Amps for the heating. Its written there.
I don't expect "freaky waveform errors", and the test shows no excess heat without this. However when you say the current was less than 60A you are I believe confusing RMS current (given in the report) with PEAK current (relevant to the matter of saturation). If I've mistaken this please let me know. The difference, known as the CREST FACTOR, can be up to 10 in Triode controlled waveforms as here. This just shows that engagement with experts, careful reflection, and self-criticism is needed when considering these technical matters before jumping to conclusions. I deplore (unless I'm incorrect in what you are saying here) your lack of attention to detail - you could check with those posting contrary to your statements and you would then learn whether you were right or wrong.
Quote from W4 Emissivity over estimated.→ The team did a calibration run with an empty reactor – just heating with the very same current as in the main run, measuring with the same instruments. Thus any Clark & others claims regarding the first 10 days of the test are simply chunk.
That was not my claim - as you would know if you'd read my comment or talked to the many others here who make the same point. The issue is that (1) band emissivity was underestimated, and (2) band emissivity was assumed equal to total emissivity. Both are wrong. To be fair - it seems from his recent reply to Mats that Levi has the exact same misunderstanding as you, because he continues in that to talk about "the emissivity" without noting the crucial and numerically large distinction.
The calibration was stated as only used at lower temperatures, because thermocouples "could not be affixed" and calibration patches only worked at low temperature (<380C). Further, the value of emissivity at these lower temperatures was stated as correctly adjusted (it was needed) to the measured band emissivity. The authors explicitly say they did not do this at higher temperatures, and that they used the (wrong) unadjusted total emissivity curve in place of band emissivity...
Perhaps in reality you think they did something different from what they say?
Quote from W
5 What happens after 10 days can be questioned, because for this no calibration run exists. Whether the COP was 2.7 or 3.7 is not clear.Thus from the very first 10 days which were run with high standards we can conclude:LENR happenedLENR produce massive excess heat. COP > 3LENR produced the expected transmutations.Conclusion: Please discuss only the first 10 days of the test because this phase is reliably documented!!
The "calibration" was restricted to low temperatures. The "first ten days" were at a temperature of 1250C claimed, which was actually due to emissivity errors 700C. The rest of the test was claimed 1400C actual 780C. Please indicate where in the report the authors say they have calibrated this 1250C temperature reading? I believe you are mistaken, because I have read the report carefully and its says the TiO2 calibration dots can be used only at low temperatures:
Quote from Lugano report“Dots” of known emissivity, necessary to subsequent data acquisition, were placed in various places on the cable rods. It was not possible to perform this operation on the dummy reactor itself (and a fortiori on the ECat), because the temperatures attained by the reactor were much greater than those sustainable by the dots.
and this is confirmed by the Optris manual:
Quote from Optris manualIf you monitor temperatures of up to 380 °C you may place a special plastic sticker (emissivity dots – Part No.: ACLSED) onto the measuring object, which covers it completely.
The point my comment makes is that both the two high temperature COPs are wrong - and - remarkably - when corrected they both become roughly 1 and they both have an identical value. The high inherent errors in the experiment mean that you can get a recalculated COP anything in the range 0.8 - 1.3 according to what value you give to not known factors - but however you slice this the 1250C COP and the 1400C COP end up identical.
Quote from Wyttenbachwhich is reading reports others are just second hand commenting
You speak for yourself here! But you surely cannot think I did not read the Lugano report?
3 Freaky wave forms give other measurements results:
→ The report states clearly that they did not use the chopping, opposite to prior tests (Bologna). Further on they did run the reactor for 10 days in low power mode. Thus initially no freaky wave forms were present. The current used, was a bit less than 60 Amps for the heating. Its written there.
The report states clearly that they did not use the ON/OFF mode:
QuoteWe also chose not to induce the ON/OFF power input mode ...
"Chopping" (phase-angle-mode as shown in Figure 5 of the report) was used all the time.
hints; but the simplest is that randombit0 is not a native English speaker
Do you have a source on that? Randombit0's writing sometimes shows flawless English (to my 6th through nth generation British Isles, N. American ears and eyes, anyway). Other times "she" shows admittedly non-native usage. Is there someone editing her posts on occasion?
Quote from randombit0Is quite a shame that so much junk information populate discussions in the net. Seems that people like, or have interest to, create a parallel ( fake ) reality.
Two ungrammatical sentences. They in no way affect intelligibility, but perhaps indicate non-native English speaker.
OK, those are fair examples. Perhaps these "on the fly" writings are indeed more revealing of non-native origins than the "polished" discourses that were reviewed by the spouse.
2 Rossi manipulated fuel-
→ Of course did Rossi manipulate the fuel .. prior to the test, but other call this preparation of fuel...
The experimenters took their probes prior to the test and after the test.
The experimenters planted their fuel probe in a way they would detect any manipulations by Rossi...
In the case of the first fuel analysis (spring 2011) Rossi himself admits that the fuel was manipulated. I believe that. I do not believe, however, Rossi's statement that Sven K knew this. He would not have performed a complicated and expensive analysis if he had known about the manipulation, because the manipulation made the analysis useless. This was the case where the ash contained 10% Cu, which was very conveniently consistent with the proposed reaction p+Ni-->Cu. However, the Cu turned up to be as separate particles, not integrated with the Ni powder. As an explanation has been offered that the Cu content was due to an accidental contamination from Cu tubing. I find it more likely that Rossi did not realize how detailed an analysis was possible, so he added the Cu deliberately to confirm the suggested (Focardi, Ross J N Phys paper) reaction.
This manipulation of the ash is consistent with Rossi's handling of the Lugano test ash where it contained 99% 62Ni. In the 2011 sample the isotope ratios were, however, natural values. Especially since it turns out that Rossi had purchased isotopically separated 62Ni, I would say that the most likely scenario is that Rossi used separated 62Ni for the ash sample, which for no good reason was very small (62Ni is expensive).
It is interesting that we have a problem even if both ash samples were genuine. For the 2011 sample there is no viable reaction that could give excess energy! If the active reaction in Lugano were Ni-->62Ni (which would give some energy), one could conclude that the E-Cat and the Hot-Cat use completely different reactions for producing heat. How likely is it that Rossi has found not one but two different routes to LENR?
