Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

Indeed - thank you Alan!

They be at hand Sir with stick and fiddle;
They can play a new dance called hey-diddle-diddle.

Quote

This sounds great for people witch have no access to the Lugano report, but for me its simple spinning.

Everyone has access to the report:
http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/1/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

and to my comment:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf

Quote

The rod is calculated in detail within page 19 of the report. And if they did the dummy run OK - this is your statement - then, for teh rod, you have no "optris arguments" for the full run...

I don't follow that. The dummy run had reactor at (what they said) was 450C and rods below the temperature at which they could use the reference spots (380C) so they should - although they have not explicitly stated which temperatures they did this for - have properly calibrated temperature measurements of these for the low temp dummy run. Note also below the X2 error you made re the rod power.

For the "full run" the rods were at a much higher temperature, since, they claim the reactor was 1250C, and therefore their calculation was wrong. The "optris argument" does indeed apply. But, even if it did not apply - the power calculated from the rods is only a small amount of the total, so whether the rods power value is corrected or no is not so important (it would lead to maybe a 10% COP error - but the experiment errors are larger than this).

Quote

One more thing: If you look at the PCE830 output on page 6, you can clearly see that only 1/3 of the time power is running into the system. Thus the average (Watts!) is proportional to about 1/5 of the peak current.

This comment has no relevance to my argument - so to introduce it here is spin - however I'll happily consider the electrical issue (others like andrea.s have done it in more depth).

Watts are not the average of current. In fact that waveform, if we take it typical and we don't know whether it is dummy or active (they will be different) shows 6 sinusoids occupying 25% of the time. The power of the sine waves comes from squaring current, averaging, and multiplying by R. The R multiplication does not matter here. The equivalent RMS continuous current for this waveform comes from sqrt(RMS of a sine (0.5 of peak) * 0.25 + 0 * 0.75) = sqrt(1/8) = approx 1/3 so the crest factor here is roughly 3. Note that it goes up less fast than you'd expect for spiky waveforms because of the square needed in going from current to power.

Quote

If You can't explain why the rods produce 3x more Watt'age, without blaming other people, then let it be.

From Table 5 two sets of the rods dissipate 307W during the first 10 days - your preferred period.
From Table 4 one set of rods dissipates 97W - you need to multiply this by 2 to get a comparable number which I think you forgot.
The rods produce 1.58X more power, for an input power change from 486W (dummy) to 800W (first 10 day active).

Quote

Bdw. I have read most of Your post's and they sound plausible, but as a spin-doctor You look only at things which help Your arguments. But rods are a hard stuff...

When it comes to the science here I try to look at everything. You have to, because otherwise someone else can come along and tell you why you are wrong. But in any case, where there are real answers, I care much more about those being right than for any prior idea I might have in this debate.

Scientists may make mistakes, and often (they are only human) their mistakes will be in line with their biasses. Generally they try very hard not to do so, and a professional approach is all about trying to reduce the likelihood of mistakes. But when mistakes happen they can be corrected by other people noticing the errors (as I have done here with Lugano).

I miss things too. I did not initially realise that the dummy test figures (the rods and caps at least) had book emissivity corrected - the fact that this was done was buried in the report text and it is weird that they would realise a correction was needed but not apply it to the real test.

You should maybe ask yourself how it is that so many mistakes can be made in the testing of Rossi's devices - but that is not a science question - the important thing is identifying, and correcting if possible, the mistakes.

Quote

Frank - do you believe that postings on this forum could influence prospective jury members should there be a trial in Rossi vs IH in Miami?

Quote from Frank

Well, suppose one or two of the Jurors mention to the Judge when asked; "have you read or heard of anyone giving an opinion about the issues concerning this case" and a juror explains he has read your contributions on various blogs in an effort to understand the issues. You will indeed be part of the case then.

It is highly unlikely that any such jury member would have read this site, or even know of its existence.

However, if they had, who will they believe? Some random guy on an internet forum or a credentialled expert witness with a prepared statement backed by his/her professional authority and surviving cross-exaimnation?

Dewey & Tom

Try not to worry, lets hope you are right.

One way to avoid any misunderstanding is to keep to the 'unbiased facts', that way even if 'by chance' the jury are 'influenced' it cannot be construed as 'undue influence'.

Let me know if you need any further help understanding this.

Best regards
Frank

Quote

Let me know if you need any further help understanding this.

I do need help actually. Are you claiming that because ECW is a veritable font of biassed opinion, this might prejudice the trial?

Even though, as for here, it is very unlikely any Jury member would read ECW and if they did pretty unlikely they would not realise it was biassed top to bottom.

I though the US had a system where juries could be screened for prior bias? Just that in this case I doubt anyone would bother...

Tom

I suggest you subject such conjecture to the discipline of Bayesian logic and let me know what you find.

You may well be right. But think on this, Many a jury (and I am thinking particularly of a case I was involved with) will take the side of the 'underdog' the 'small person' who seems to be at the mercy of powerful players. You may be unconcerned but the smallest influence can sometimes be decisive.

So long as you are true to yourself and balanced in your approach to presenting information then there should be no problem.

Best regards
Frank

Quote

So long as you are true to yourself and balanced in your approach to presenting information then there should be no problem.

The matter of pots and kettles comes to mind. I am sure I am not always 100% balanced. But no-one here is and I generally sit nearer what is balanced than most, and at least try to be fair to all sides. This is a matter where the facts (Rossi test reports and related information) weigh very heavily in one direction.

Thomas

Then you have no need to worry!

Best regards
Frank

They do an old dance called hey-diddle-diddle,
And they laugh out loud while they play you like a fiddle.

Thomas - say it ain't so - FrankWTU is ECW! He must have thought that was too obvious of a question when I asked for more information about him a couple of weeks ago. We can confirm that Frank is a bonafide living citizen of Planet Rossi. I'm going to give him Governor status as he has the power to ban rebels and control dissonance that doesn't tow the PR line. I've got a classic string saved that flowed in an almost identical fashion to the discussion on Mats' blog for banning trolls and controlling rift raft just before that plug got pulled as well.

Frank - I'm working on traffic report for you that your advertisers aren't going to like it. You should consider cleaning up ECW and prepare for the future. While we're at it, why same repetitive question on JNOP? Can't you get a little more original than that or is it that Rossi uses you for filler in between points he is trying cluster together? Or are you not the author of the almost daily "how goes the QuarkX today"?

Dewey

Let you into a little secret, but promise not to tell anyone. Me and randombit0 are really Bonnie and Clyde, and Elvis never did leave the building.

You have no idea what you are dealing with, and your investment history is testament to this! But you are right to be afraid; its your shadow!!

Best regards
Frank

Nice Frank - The picture continues to clear daily. Your unchecked bias might be your downfall...or is it worse than that?

Thankfully - it's just a sapling. Woof!

Quote from Thomas Clarke

From Table 5 two sets of the rods dissipate 307W during the first 10 days - your preferred period.
From Table 4 one set of rods dissipates 97W - you need to multiply this by 2 to get a comparable number which I think you forgot.
The rods produce 1.58X more power, for an input power change from 486W (dummy) to 800W (first 10 day active).

Mr Clark! As a consequence of reaching Your goal to be the perfect spin doctor the shit level reached the fan... The 'exact' calculation for the rods (dummy run 125Watts) is on p.19 If You don't apologize to intentionally spread false information then I will ask for a ban.

Dewey

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Nice Frank - The picture continues to clear daily. Your unchecked bias might be your downfall...or is it worse than that?

Oh, its worse than that, its 'evidence based objectivity'.

Best regards
Frank

Quote from Wyttenbach

Mr Clark! As a consequence of reaching Your goal to be the perfect spin doctor the shit level reached the fan... The 'exact' calculation for the rods (dummy run 125Watts) is on p.19 If You don't apologize to intentionally spread false information then I will ask for a ban.

It is hard work having these debates with you because you state something, I explain why you are wrong in detail, you then ignore the previous matter and pick something new that you allege I've done wrong - claiming somehow it is a crime!

If it were a crime to make mistakes over this matter you would be sentenced now at least twice!

However, you have identified a mistake the Lugano report authors have made, and so I forgive you!

Table 4 quite clearly states that the last column is the total power dissipated by one of the two sets of rods. It is convincing. They calculate the power (radiation and convection) from the two lower rods Totd, and separately for the one upper rod, Totu. They then work out the three rods power by adding double the lower rod power to the single upper rod power to get 97W as shown in Table 4.

Quote from table 4

The last cell of the table gives the total watts emitted by one whole set of three rods, reckoned by multiplying the results relevant to the lower rod by 2, and adding them to those of the upper rod.

However, you refer to Equation (24) which takes the "Tot 3 rods" Table 4 number, multiplies it by 2/3 (weird) and then by 2 (correct to go from one set of rods to two).

The authors don't explain the 2/3 in Equation (24) and have clearly made another mistake, which you have noticed.

Let us follow through what happens from this mistake. The authors (with this mistake) give the dummy device power output calculation as:
(316.50 ± 4.11) + (129.86 ± 6.49) = 446.36 ± 10.60 = 446 ± 2.4% [W]

The figure you question here is the 129.86W. If we replace this by the correct figure (from their own calculation in Table 4 for a single set of rods, multiplied by 2) we get 194W for rods or an output power which is 65W higher.

Let us check this:
Report (with 2/3 error, as made by authors): Input 479W, Output 446W (7% under)
Report (corrected for the 2/3 "Wyttenbach" error): Input 479W, Output 511W (7% over).

The errors are potentially large here because of uncertainty in the convection power figures, one reason why I did not try to recalculate the dummy test and so did not find this error myself. But what we can see from your identifying this error is that if there other calculations are correct (I'm not sure) the real figure shows an overestimate of the output power by 7%. This is expected because the same emissivity issue will apply to the reactor body temperatures which are not calibrated and use therefore the book values of emissivity so over-estimating temperature.

There is some speculation because we are not quite sure how they adjust the emissivity curve based on the cal data. They might adjust emissivity at temperatures close to the ones calibrated as well, with say linear interpolation back to the book curve. We just don't know.

Anyway this mathematical mistake in the dummy test rods calculation, which you have noticed, makes the dummy test ball park figures they obtain more believable. Does this affect things? Not really, because the dummy tests figures have too many unknowns. But it is certainly interesting.

Congratulations!

Dear moderators - could you possibly have a word with Wyttenbach who seems over-excited on this thread. It is to his great credit that he is looking at the dummy test stuff in the report which I ignored because the unknowns were too high. But, excitingly, he has discovered a simple math error (see details above) that when corrected shows that the dummy test headline calculated power should be 14% higher and therefore have a COP of 1.07. This shows a +7% error in the power estimation which is consistent with some of the dummy test data being subject to the same emissivity error that affects the high temperature data.

It has a much smaller effect because at lower temperatures:
(1) The error is less due to the book emissivity being closer to the band emissivity at the lower temperature 0.7 for 0.9 instead of 0.4 for 0.9).
(2) The error only affects some of the power out - not the power from the rods and caps which is at a low enough temperature to be calibrated

I still view these dummy figures with suspicion mainly because convection is a large part of total and the convection calculations use ideal models that do not include edge effects. I cannot estimate the errors from this assumption. Also for the dummy test temperatures it matters a lot which sets of temperatures are "calibrated" and which not. From the given temperatures it looks as though maybe the reactor body is not calibrated, and the caps and rods are. But this is not clear.

Best wishes, Tom

Quote from Thomas Clarke

I still view these dummy figures with suspicion mainly because convection is a large part of total and the convection calculations use ideal models that do not include edge effects. I cannot estimate the errors from this assumption. Also for the dummy test temperatures it matters a lot which sets of temperatures are "calibrated" and which not. From the given temperatures it looks as though maybe the reactor body is not calibrated, and the caps and rods are. But this is not clear.

The main purpose of my posting was to show that You think/work like a spin-doctor and not like a scientist. You never follow or look for arguments which undermine your point.

My junior high-school teacher started his math-ex discussion usually with the following sentence:

The Elephant weighs 4 grams!

So You did pick up my argument rod-test 100Watt, which was a little bit low according to the documentation (but in reality still way to high..) and blindly acting according to the spin-doctors cook-book and doubled the figure (by just looking at one sentence below a table).

Its a kitchen rule if You input 450 Watts into a heater there is no way a rod below the heater can dissipate about half of this figure. In fact more than half of the radiation goes directly up sky and at least half of the rest (look at the e-cat photos) goes down the earth. (Heat conduction is bad according to measurements.)

The main problem of spin-doctors is positive feedback. You made the wrong decision by stating that the experimenters did the dummy run-measurements correct! What is as wrong as most of Your posts are.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

There is no error in the dummy calculations because they used correct figures from calibration.

I do not say that your (teams) reasoning is wrong. I only make the point that on the base of false assumption every conclusion is more wrong than the base for the assumptions and in my eyes any further word about Lugano is just gossip-talk.

Conclusion of Lugano: Even the dummy run documentation is complete nonsense and can not be used as a base.

Thus my proposal is to close any Lugano discussion/threads because the report lacks any profound scientefic background. It is just a waste of time.