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

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

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



    My Dear Mr.Clarke,
    making errors is not a crime, but trying to influence a Jury writing "ad hoc" erroneous argumentation maybe is.


    Quote from Thomas Clarke

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


    Again hiding some important information, or most probably not even being able to read a report Mr. Clarke.


    The authors in fact has explained why on page 18.

    Quote

    Because the rods were placed in overlapping positions, each one of them was capable of dissipating heat to the environment for only 2/3 of its surface


    And just before the formula you cite is also written:
    [quote]We can now calculate the total heat emitted from both sets of three rods, bearing in mind how much of their surface is actually emitting heat[\quote]

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    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.


    I realise that. And you have made your spin-doctor thought here clear. You have a desired end - show I'm biassed - and are just trying to do anything to prove it.


    Thus far you have failed. I have followed all arguments on Lugano. None undermine my point. There have been some (transparency) that make the results flaky by adding extra errors. These could be larger than I initially thought. But in my (a long time ago) analysis I included transparency and allowed for this.


    The Lugano analysis is tight. The experiment itself is rubbish - too many errors - but the apparent COP and acceleration comes from incorrect calculations. When these are corrected you get COP ~ 1 and no acceleration if you ignore the unknown errors in the same way the authors did.


    That is true, and if there were anything that undermined it I would have found this. You have certainly not found it. But you are welcome to go on trying.


    Science is a hard taskmater, it points the way it points. In the case of Rossi, if you try to make a case for his stuff working, you have all these unfortunate science facts that get in the way.


    That is not spin.

    Hank


    Quote from Hank Mills

    I just asked Frank Acland if he was FrankWTU on this forum, and he said no.


    I trust Frank Acland and if he said he is not FrankWTU then he is not.


    If Frank WTU has implied he was Frank Acland, he is an impostor.


    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    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.


    Just for the record I confirm I have never claimed to be Frank Acland and of course I am not.


    Moderators:


    Dewey Weaver appears to be making some very damaging claims and threats. Perhaps you could speak with Frank, and if he is of this view also, the moderators should consider 'banning' Mr Dewey Weaver from this forum.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Re the 2/3 factor. Paradigmnoia is right, and I was wrong.


    The 2/3 factor is a correct adjustment (approximate - but fair enough) so the dummy calculations stand. And I was wrong to believe the Table 4 values which were (confusingly) labelled.


    So mea culpa. I apologise to the report authors for my 60 minute real-time lapse. And I take back my accolade for Wyttenbach who has not discovered this error, because the 2/3 factor is fine.


    Let us advance Wyttenbach's argument. We now have a lower rod power of 129W total from the dummy test with 480W in, compared with 307W rod power for 800W in.
    480/129 = 0.27
    307/800 = 0.383


    The rod power fraction goes up a bit! How can this be?


    Well, by the reason I pointed out in my first answer to Wyttenbach. The calculated active rod power is no longer accurate, because calculated temperature is no longer accurate. The miscalulated temperature (too high) leads to a higher than real power.


    Of course, it is not clear that as we alter the power in, the fraction of rod power out should stay the same. It could go either way and I'm not sure!


    Another reason why I did not pay attention to the dummy recalculation - it is just too unknowable.


    Wyttenbach is sort of claiming that I paid littel attention to this because it might disprove my conclusions. I can't see what result from teh dummy tests would do that - other than something really weird.


    Tom

    To be fair, I would take the 1/3 subtraction from the total of three independent rods over doing the proper calculations.


    A while back, I made up cool spreadsheet that let me input and compare emissivity, radiance, and temperature changes to the dummy, convection included, with rods. The rods, I quickly discovered, are a huge quagmire to do as a unit. I am sure it can be done, but I have zero desire to work on it further. Might make a neat thermodynamics thesis to make an accurate model. If the rods have a slight gap, the calculations are hugely affected. Don't forget that the rods are conducting heat towards ambient (on the far ends). Ignoring the rods, for the moment, I did find that using a higher normal emissivity, and lower temperature, that there is a possible sweet spot, where in the right temperature range the dummy input power is only about 20 W higher than the total heat power calculated. Very much cherry picking, though. Not worth defending or debating here. But anyone else is free to try it.

    Quote

    I notice your errors now show even the failed Lugano results at worst show a COP of >1, is this a trend?


    No they don't. Which errors?


    There is only one error, unlike Levi, I listen to others and when I make an error (in a post here written without long reflection) I immediately admit this, underline it, and apologise.


    However this error does not affect any of my results or conclusions. It was not made, anywhere, in my written comment, which does not use it. Basically I thought for a little while that Wyttenbach had found another error in the report that would alter their dummy results +14%. Which would be fun. But I did not assume this in my comment, and pointed out all the ways these dummy results are anyway flaky. And although fun, you will see my immediate response to this new error that turned out not to be an error was that it did not affect anything (that was during the 60 minutes I thought it was real).


    randombit0 - what (precisely) do you want to conclude from this rod analysis? It beats me how you can do better than what I've said above...


    Others. I don't much do spin. If you cannot consider for yourself the facts here, you should not believe anything I or anyone else says that is technical. If you consider me less reliable because I admit and immediately correct an error then God help you... :)

    While it is understandable that in a forum dedicated to LENR the vast majority are people who believe in LENR and most of them in Rossi's work, and it is thus understandable that skeptics' arguments find little consensus, the way Thomas Clarke is attacked is unacceptable. Alleging that he is "a team" (Wyttenbach) or "trying to influence a Jury writing ad hoc erroneous argumentation" (randombit0) is really too much. The forum administrators should enforce that people abstain from such accusations. Supporters and skeptics are equally passionate about this story, and it is completely normal that some people seek visibility, without the need to imagine conspiracies or corruption behind some compulsive posting.
    I personally agree with most of Thomas Clarke's arguments, not in all details, but in the most important
    conclusion, i.e. that the emissivity issue completely invalidates the Lugano test.


    I also think that except for use of a wrong emissivity input in the Optris camera, the computation method is valid within a reasonable approximation: I tested it on MFMP's dummy dogbone (the replica they did in Feb 2015) and COP was a reasonable 0.91 to 0.97 when using the right temperatures (whereas it was a wild 4.32 when using the Optris camera reading with enissivity set to 0.45). This is described in
    http://cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123579764_1.pdf



    Then I also have reasons to think that at some point in the Lugano experiment , perhaps before the long term test started, the input power was around 3kW: this would explain the ratio of the joule heating reported from dummy run to experiment run and would match the figure 5 current waveform. If the report were independent, there should be no reason to withhold the information.




    Talking about compulsion, I couldn't help looking for the source of randombit0's new image. Who knows, face serum could be the secret ingredient that wasn't revealed to IH.
    http://www.abigailjames.com/ca…skin-and-beauty/skincare/

    Quote

    To be fair, I would take the 1/3 subtraction from the total of three independent rods over doing the proper calculations.A while back, I made up cool spreadsheet that let me input and compare emissivity, radiance, and temperature changes to the dummy, convection included, with rods. The rods, I quickly discovered, are a huge quagmire to do as a unit. I am sure it can be done, but I have zero desire to work on it further. Might make a neat thermodynamics thesis to make an accurate model. If the rods have a slight gap, the calculations are hugely affected. Don't forget that the rods are conducting heat towards ambient (on the far ends). Ignoring the rods, for the moment, I did find that using a higher normal emissivity, and lower temperature, that there is a possible sweet spot, where in the right temperature range the dummy input power is only about 20 W higher than the total heat power calculated. Very much cherry picking, though. Not worth defending or debating here. But anyone else is free to try it.


    I stand by my original assessment of the dummy data. Basically the convection results are not safe, and they dominate for the dummy, so we cannot conclude anything. For example, changes in turbulence due to edges (not considered) could alter convective loss significantly in a nonlinear fashion. Also issues to do with local air heating and local near object heating can have a significant affect in the low temperature power analysis.


    The high temp re-analysis is OK since convection is small, and all these other errors look much smaller - though there remain a set of real issues as you know. In fact my original error analysis looks still about right.


    I suppose I'm pessimistic about my own analytic ability. I reckon once an analysis of this sort has too many unknowns and uncertain issues it is unsafe. The Lugano authors do nothing to make it safer, and do not reveal how they obtained their calculated powers (which temperatures were calibrated, how was the book curve changed by the calibration just outside the cal range).

    Quote from TC


    Let us advance Wyttenbach's argument. We now have a lower (due to 2/3 factor) rod power of 129W total from the dummy test with 480W in, compared with 307W rod power for 800W in.
    480/129 = 0.27
    307/800 = 0.383
    The rod power fraction goes up a bit! How can this be? Well, by the reason I pointed out in my first answer to Wyttenbach. The calculated active rod power is no longer accurate, because calculated temperature is no longer accurate. The mis-calulated temperature (too high) leads to a higher than real power. Of course, it is not clear that as we alter the power in, the fraction of rod power out should stay the same with all else accurate. It could go either way and I'm not sure! Another reason why I did not pay attention to the dummy recalculation in my comment - it is just too unknowable.

    Rossi was dealing with Sharks in Darden and Industrial Heat:


    Tom Darden - together with Cherokee Investments Partners - have filed for 2 bankruptcies in February 2016. Their investors lost 23 million dollars. Obviously all money of the investors: the money just disappeared.


    http://www.postandcourier.com/…e/20160208/PC05/160209426


    Mr Darden collects investments in companies that end up dissipating the money of the investors with the excuse that the business is not gone well.

    andrea.s


    Quote from andrea.s

    The forum administrators should enforce that people abstain from such accusations


    The forum administrators do a good job on the whole and I for one would like to offer my support, although I admit there have been a number of challenges of late.


    I have a great deal of respect for Thomas, but I think even he realises if you swim with the sharks you are going to get bitten every now and then. I remember he was quite supportive of Mary Yugo who many thought brought interesting facts to the forum but crossed the line with personal ad homs. So it is a balance, anything which is claimed here must be supported by evidence, it is right that any evidence presented might be questioned quite aggressively, but an attack on the person is not an option, particularly if that attack can be seen as 'damaging'. So while I do not agree with everything Thomas says, I will defend his right to say it, providing it is based on 'true evidence'.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Dear Mr. Clarke,
    read the report and find the answers. Don't mess up with just insults. The fraction of power in the rod is higher because when the reactor is at high temperature the heat conduction along the wires from the reactor to the rods in higher.


    Have a good night and sleep well.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    I suppose I'm pessimistic about my own analytic ability. I reckon once an analysis of this sort has too many unknowns and uncertain issues it is unsafe. The Lugano authors do nothing to make it safer, and do not reveal how they obtained their calculated powers (which temperatures were calibrated, how was the book curve changed by the calibration just outside the cal range).


    This is exactly the reason why we should stop discussing this report. It screws up everybody's (me included) mind, because most details in the Lugano report present a new uncertainty, we can't cope with. Just to add a few more: Wrong calculation of resistance/wattage for the wires, extensive heat transport over outgoing copper wires into the rods. Picking some particle out of the ash and doing MS etc..
    This is definitively my last comment on this report.


    As I said some days ago: Use Your brains for more important things.

    @Thomas Clarke
    Based on the below images, there is no evidence that the Optris emissivity was adjusted by using the emissivity stickers. Maybe they did, but did not show their work.
    That is why I have some doubts about the dummy temperature.

    Based on data I looked up, plus experiments I did, the line is usually much flatter on the low T side of the plot, almost all the way to 20°C, with a higher emissivity. Up to a normal emissivity of almost one in porous, rough alumina, below 400 C. Below 100°C, I had a great deal of trouble getting good epsilon values. There is also a depth problem with IR in very porous, non-incandescent materials, where one may be measuring IR from effectively below the surface.


    But who knows what the device was like.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.