The Playground

    @DNI


    Quote

    Thomas I think Hank and you talk about different occasions. Hank speeks of a test performed by Levi in 2011. A test with no released protokoll and no other witness. You are talking about a test performed in oktober 2012 in front of Mats and many more.


    I was talking about the second test - I remember 6 Oct 2011 but my memory may well be wrong.


    The Levi tests do not appear to me to be good evidence of LENR. Partly because they are single (involved) observer. Partly because Levi has delivered experimental results that are unreliable:

    • The 2011 (Levi only) tests. A flowrate was stated 40% higher than the dosimetric pump rated maximum. The pump was not overloaded with mains pressure, because these tests were conducted using a hose in bucket input, isolated from mains. The quoted flowrate is just not possible. Ascoli has rather more to say about this than me, and would maybe make some stronger statement.
    • The Lugano test. Recently Levi was asked by Mats about the thermography error. In his reply he said that "even if the emissivity is set to 1 the result still shows a COP of 2", and that he had "checked this with colleagues at UoB".


    Now Levi's reply shows the identical conceptual confusion randombit0 showed here - an assumption that total emissivity and band emissivity must be the same so that the emissivity exists as a single quantity. If both are set to 1 what he says would be true - but of course if the band emissivity is close to 1 and the total emissivity is 0.5, as is the case, it is not true. That confusion leads to the wrong calculations in the Lugano report.


    This error is understandable. You need a more subtle model of what is going on to make the distinction. There is nothing in Levi's past to expect a detailed understanding of thermography. But to persist in it after challenge and discussion with others shows a lack of reflection and self-criticism which could adversely affect other results.


    So I can't see how any sole report from Levi can be seen as strong evidence, if this indeed was what Hank was referring to.

    Quote

    You know Levi will never reply in this forum Thomas. And neither will the many other distinguished physicists involved in these tests and the subsequent re-checking of results. Soft targets make poor sport.


    The same scientists (I actually think it is likely only Levi who is responsible) have not subjected their work to peer review. Further, when informed privately of a critique, they either do not reply (to a detailed written comment) or provide a reply that proves they have an overly-simplified model of the problem (Levi's reply to Mats). They are as any scientist free to publish additional material to justify their claims, just as i am free to publish a critique.


    From my POV it is not about sport, but ensuring that technical analysis is of the highest quality. I post here with no claim to qualifications. On the other hand I have explained the Lugano error as many times as is needed to all who ask. I think there is no-one here who has looked at the technical stuff in detail who does not agree the Lugano analysis is just badly wrong, and that Levi's recent reply shows a bad misunderstanding.


    Although Levi has not come on here under his own name, he is free as I am to come on here under a pseudonym and challenge my comments. Indeed, it is just possible (randombit0) that he has done so - although if so without much success.


    By putting documents in the public domain, authors invite review from others. That is what I provide. Others here are free to critique my critique and in fact many have done so. I am grateful for this and as a result have considerably tightened up my understanding of the matter - challenge is always helpful. I should also point out that my conclusions have been substantially verified in writing by other groups both before and after I wrote my comment. My role was putting stuff together.


    I don't understand why a detailed scientific critique of a paper should be an attack. Nor why the authors are any more "soft targets" than anyone else publishing a paper. Further, Levi's professional activity at UoB seems far away from what he is doing in the Rossi testing. Lack of competence in one area does not imply lack of competence in the other.


    As for Levi's sole reports of tests, this is a matter of fair comment. Someone above was saying (I think) that these reports constituted the best ever evidence of Rossi LENR. If the content is inconsistent should that matter be ignored? The reports in this case were anecdotal, but the critique is backed by photographs and manufacturers specifications. Do you suppose out of respect for Levi's possible unwillingness to reply we should have a conspiracy of silence on any inconsistency? In any case Rossi, and Levi, are quite capable of replying on the internet when they so wish, as Levi's recent reply to Mats shows.


    Scientists welcome critique. It is painful to be corrected, but even more painful to propagate things that contain mistakes. I can't see why Levi would be any different - it is just a shame that his reply to mats shows he has not yet in detail considered a critique that has been available to him for more than 12 months.

    Quote

    And neither will the many other distinguished physicists involved in these tests and the subsequent re-checking of results.


    And those other faceless scientists, whose existence can only be hypothesised, have put no work into the public domain and therefore can have no need to reply. It may well be that everything I say here is now known to them (in fact that is what I'd expect). But the original matter is public, because the original reports were made public. Rossi's, and the independent scientists, choice.

    Quote from Rends

    <a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1390-DNI/">@DNI</a> <a href="https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf</a>


    That is not the test i refer to.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Careful Rends - you're moving into territory that has previously made Barty eraser-happy.


    Do you accept that there may be some alternate explanations beyond your interpretation of why IH filed some patent applications which are completely within their…


    I would like to speculate on this point. So caution speculation ahead......
    Many years ago I worked as a sub on a contract for a large computer vendor that prided themselves on the number of patents they had. They even had tiers of patents so the more patents granted, you would reach a threshold (meaning more money). We in the lab had several algorithms that upon review were patented by the vendor. To give them credit several subs (not me) were named on the patent. But the patent holders were the permanent employees not the subs. (Our contract indicated that any and all IP and patents were to be owned by the vendor).


    I mention this as there are other reasons that different names show up on patents (that are not necessarily the person that developed the idea).
    As a side note, our project fizzled. But some of the IP parts became the heart of products that are very profitable even today.


    Edit: clean up punctuation

    Rends - does Rigel speak for you?


    Rigel - thanks for the information. Software patents are a mess these days thanks to Google taking over the USPTO and spending millions lobbying the US Congress to reduce their value. SW patent prices are down 80% in the past 10 months and guess who is now purchasing SW patents?

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Now Levi's reply shows the identical conceptual confusion randombit0 showed here - an assumption that total emissivity and band emissivity must be the same so that the emissivity exists as a single quantity. If both are set to 1 what he says would be true - but of course if the band emissivity is close to 1 and the total emissivity is 0.5, as is the case, it is not true. That confusion leads to the wrong calculations in the Lugano report.



    Thomas my dear You are back ! I was missing you sugar ! So after some hours of silence you start to repeat your old story !
    I try to make a simple explanation "for dummy" like you.
    There is only one emissivity (total my dear !) because there is only one parameter to set on any IR camera. That value is used to compute the temperature from the power measured by the IR camera sensors. When you compute power back from temperature you must use the same value. Because the two values in the two formulas direct and inverse are the same they cancel.
    May be you have not understood.... or just don't want to understand. Who knows ?


    Ah about the pump..... any experimenter would not rely on the model and factory datasheet but would do his own calibration just in case that the pump used in the experiment was modified. I think that this was done. But maybe you are Aristotelian Philosophers and prefer to discuss of models and datasheets instead of measures.

    @randombit0


    I wrote you an exemplary little essay about the emissivity problem, after you asked me to explain it. (In the science thread, where it belongs).


    You did not even have the decency to reply.


    I would hope you would go read it, think on it, and then truly learn what the issue is.


    Best wishes,
    Paradigmnoia

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    I wrote you an exemplary little essay about the emissivity problem, after you asked me to explain it. (In the science thread, where it belongs).


    Sorry to say it @Paradigmnoia : Professional spinning has taken over many threads in this forum. It's lost time to hang around with these guys. Do not answer posts of:


    scuromio, Dewey weaver, Monty, Keieueue, Jed Rothwell, LENR calender, randombit.


    Just to name the tip of the iceberg. Thomas sometimes is fun, if he is not crying for mom.

    Quote

    There is only one emissivity (total) because there is only one parameter to set on any IR camera.


    No, that is band emissivity. But it is the only one value you enter into the camera.


    Quote

    That value is used to compute the temperature from the power measured by the IR camera sensors.


    Correct - except the IR sensors measure only IR power - not total power. big difference...


    Quote

    When you compute power back from temperature you must use the same value. Because the two values in the two formulas direct and inverse are the same they cancel.


    No because the IR sensor power is "power in 7-13u band". The total power is (obviously) power in all bands. You say they are the same, which is self-evidently wrong.


    The Plank Curve shows that these two powers vary in different ways with temperature. You could see this with a web calculator. Do you need me to help you do this?



    Quote

    May be you have not understood.... or just don't want to understand. Who knows ?


    Perhaps this is a self-referential comment?

    Quote from randombit0

    Quote from Thomas Clarke: “Now Levi's reply shows the identical conceptual confusion randombit0 showed here - an assumption that total emissivity and band emissivity must be the same so that the emissivity exists as a single quantity. If both are set…


    Doctor...no no no...Professor...no no...our Lord A.R.! How are you this evening?


    Rossi has little time for this as he has many sock puppets to control...

    All joking aside, I think it is pretty cool we are able to interact directly with Rossi (a.k.a. randombit0) on here. Rossi...you should let up on the "my dear" and "sugar" stuff...it is way too transparent you are trying to appear to be female. But again...I am honored to get to interact directly with the man himself.

    Dewey Weaver.
    You asked a question of "Rends" . While its addressed to him, I am confused. I have given an example from my experience on why a person that has paid for IP may wish to get there name on a patent. I thought it may add perspective to the situation. It was not meant anything other than that. I don't know nor have I communicated to anyone on these boards other than in a thread.
    If you have noticed I don't like the personal name calling, search my posts for TY and MY. I thought MY had something to offer but fell off the wagon on getting the message through. TY could not manage a coherent thought. Right now people have accused Randombit of being Rossi. While the randombit avatar does not represent who is behind it. Sometimes they make a valid point. Though like others here lately whatever the point was, it is lost on me once the heckling starts.

    Rigel - it is dear of you to care so much about specific things and to have certain curiosities. Your patterns seem so familiar. I cannot quite put my finger on it but I'll continue to ponder and watch your post, along with several others who somehow write and think like you. If you see Rends, let him know that I have a specific question for him on the IP side. Do you have any additional comments on Google crushing SW patent values? That would seem to be more in your wheelhouse of interest. Or would you rather defend the RB01?

    Dewey if my pattern seems so familiar it may seem like a parent when it sees children flinging poo in the yard. A simple "STOP THAT" usually worked.
    I would like to consider myself more like Alain_co. I am watching and wondering if LENR will someday work commercially.
    I am very curious and have been following LENR for a long time. Since I clearly do not think Mr. Rossi has the goods what pattern am I following? And are you accusing me of being Rends? I honestly want to know.


    I have had to re-educate myself in math to understand Tom Clarke's paper. On the otherside Axil has provided reference URLs for fascinating new physics. I am grateful for these things. Also I tried to explain my reasoning on why IH may have wanted to be on the patent. If you disagree, why not question me directly? And who is this Rends fellow? Will he buy my dinner? If he is in the EU he will need paypal.

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.