To discus the 'science' behind the dispute between Rossi and Industrial Heat

I think that we should really limit our self to discuss Scientific and Technical topics. I have found too many incorrect or even completely wrong argumentation here especially in the skeptical authors.
The real worse thing seems that some of them don't do that by error but by purpose and interest.
Others are skeptical followers not informed about the topic and write in favor of the front they think more safe just copying the same erroneous argumentation of the first.
There is also a huge number of personal attacks, that I found quite unprofessional and disgusting.

Quote

I think that we should really limit our self to discuss Scientific and Technical topics. I have found too many incorrect or even completely wrong argumentation here especially in the skeptical authors. The real worse thing seems that some of them don't do that by error but by purpose and interest.Others are skeptical followers not informed about the topic and write in favor of the front they think more safe just copying the same erroneous argumentation of the first.

Dear Ms randombit0 - I've been following your comments, and the changes in your avatar (I preferred the first one) with some interest.

You will notice that I've replied, on the other thread, in detail to your comments which however do not address what you probably realise (most here do) is the main issue with the Lugano test.

If you could perhaps now make substantive comments here, as I see you say you would like, I and others will I am sure reply.

A word of advice. Generalisations like

Quote

I have found too many incorrect or even completely wrong argumentation here especially in the skeptical authors.

do not help anyone. If you can be specific about errors, giving exact quotes and full context, it is much easier for your audience to understand what you are on about and perhaps for those skeptical authors to set your mind at rest.

You see, the beauty of such frank and substantive exchanges is that the correctness of what is stated need not depend on the identity or reputation of the posters. The truth will out.

This has the potential of being a very interesting thread. I hope it stays on topic. I'm not up there with the impressive critical and detailed technical knowledge of the likes of Thomas and Randombit0 so will probably keep my head down but I will follow this thread with interest.

Just an update. On the other thread Wyttenbach has noticed another error the Lugano Report authors have made!

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

This is in the dummy power measurements, which I never looked at reckoning the potential uncertainties from convection calculation errors were too high. Nevertheless, the error, when corrected, changes the dummy heat balance COP from 0.93 to 1.07. Either way the error here is within even the Lugano report authors (too low) error bars. Other things being equal you would expect some over-calculation because the reactor body emissivity probably uses unadjusted book values - the temperatures are too high for calibration. So this error puts the headline dummy data exactly in line with the recalculated active test data, a better fit than the uncorrected data.

Having said that - I don't trust the dummy data much, and the experiment overall errors are high, so while this makes the numbers match better this is not very significant given all the errors.

How much of the rods are facing inward, towards each other?
(..."bearing in mind how much of their surface is actually emitting heat"...)

Randombit0 said:

Quote

Kanthal like alloys have a very special resistance vs temperature behavior. Knowing just the diameter but NOT the material can hardly help you to calculate the resistance.

Well, the application I refer to, WO2015127263, has a link to PCT/US2015/016897, and on page 10 this this document says "For example, a 15 gauge wire with resistance of 2.650 ohms/ft is one example of suitable wire." {0076}

So, find me a wire, any wire, in 15 Ga that has a resistance of (or even close to) 2.650 ohms/ ft.

15 Ga wire is mentioned twice in the same section, with a possible partial mention of Kanthal, "In particular embodiments, the wires 16 are 2 guage 15 KA resistance wires, and prior to wrapping the wires 16 around the reactor chamber"

You may quickly find that in order to get 2.650 ohms/ft, that something in the range of 28 Ga is required.

Further to the discussion of dots, I submit the following. Maybe it's nothing... but maybe another emissivity dot?

.

And, for the iteration method, as seen in tables 2a and 2b, Lugano report, I have made this as a helpful guide to test the recursive emissivity method, which I assert only self-satifies it's own graph for any given radiance detected by the Optris.
This can be used as a standard reference for anyone who cares to discuss and test this further. The red line has been traced from a scaled monthly rainfall plot, from Ascona Switzerland (chosen for its nice ups and downs). The line was smoothed from the 12 monthly bars in the plot and taken to the edges.

What I recommend to test the validity of the recursive emissivity method is substituting the values on the red line for the Lugano line. This requires a spectral radiance model, or an IR camera (or possibly a spot pointer) using the 7.5 to 13 micron IR range.

@Paradigmnoia
if you turn your graph through 90 degrees and squint it looks like an appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! How unlikely is that, just by chance? Let's keep religion in its place and out of this thread please!

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Maybe it's nothing.

Yes is nothing. Emissivity dots have a emissimity much higher then Alumina.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

What I recommend to test the validity of the recursive emissivity method is substituting the values on the red line for the Lugano line. This requires a spectral radiance model, or an IR camera (or possibly a spot pointer) using the 7.5 to 13 micron IR range.

Are you ok ? This is nonsense !

Quote from randombit0

Are you ok ? This is nonsense !

I'm very well, thank you. And you?

But this is nonsense (image below). You can prove it to yourself in about 10 minutes, using the red line, then the Lugano line (separately) and an IR camera or suitable facsimile.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Well, the application I refer to, WO201512763,

Dear, Paradigmoia I presume you have some problem or possibly have mistype the patent number.
Here is the result on WIPO.

1. (WO2015012763) A METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MONITORING WEBSITE DEFACEMENTS

Quote from Paradigmnoia

But this is nonsense (image below)

No my dear, is not nonsense if you use the right curve. Of course if you use another function or curve you will converge on that but THAT only means that you are using the wrong emissivity plot.

Sorry, definite a typo.

Try this: WO2015127263
Look for Pamphlet 131, near the bottom. It came out here much before the US version appeared.

(I'll fix the number above)

Try this link : https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2015127263&recNum=9&office=&queryString=FP%3A(Andrea+Rossi)&prevFilter=&sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&maxRec=220
Under the Documents tab, look for the 157 page Prior Document.

This is all available now on the US side, but this particular document has been available to the public since August 27, 2015.
I mainly refer to this document since it was the first to display the Lugano device blow-up schematic, with photos, now replaced by drawings in the most recent iteration. (with M.C. Escher-like coils...LOL)

Quote from randombit0

No my dear, is not nonsense if you use the right curve. Of course if you use another function or curve you will converge on that but THAT only means that you are using the wrong emissivity plot.

BINGO!

Or should I say GIGO!

So, lets look at:
(I superimposed the magenta lines on the Manara et al 2008 image)

Quote from randombit0

Quote from Paradigmnoia: “But this is nonsense (image below)”

No my dear, is not nonsense if you use the right curve. Of course if you use another function or curve you will converge on that but THAT only means that you are using the wrong…

The Lugano authors used an (approx) plot of Al2O3 total emissivity to determine temperature, when they should have used a plot of band emissivity (7-13u). The band emissivity is almost exactly flat with temperature and equal to around 0.9.

Sorry I don't have a graph but it is pretty boring...