The Playground

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Farting around with Lugano


    Oh Yes, just farts ! No facts !
    Paradigmoia, your numbers are nonsense because you don't specify how you have obtained them.
    In fact i presume that you don't have obtained your figures using correct and sound analysis.
    In the same way one could attack any scientific paper.
    I see that many pretend to criticize other people work without being able to review their own.

    Is it just me, but today looking around latest postings in most active threads, it looks like IH sympathizers have run out of steam so to say. Mr Weaver is not laying new drip drops just posting something non-related stuff like granting IQ points to axil etc. Matter a fact many pages full of nonsense in last few days.


    Is this early indication that they knew all the time that Mr Rossi had something, and now when his preliminary report came out, reality starts to sink in.
    IH IP is worthless in practise, old 1MW e-cat is is like coal heated steam engine compared to modern diesels. Scalable, adjustable output power, immediate startup shutdown, stable and after soem more R&D it will be also reliable, much more reliable than 1 MW reactor that 'Rossi had to babysit with stethoscope' so that it would not runaway.


    I think it was Mr Rossi who said long ago, when one runs out of factual arguments, stronger language and all kind of bullshit comes in play. This is what i recognize happening this week here.

    @randombit0,
    Sorry I missed your last post. The thread must have been pushed off the visible list while I was out doing more important things.


    Actually, I arrived at my calculations using multiple radiance-convection calculators (for body, caps, and rods) fed results of a separate radiance calculator that can generate equivalent Camera spectral range emissivity-power-temperature relations for values reported in the Lugano report. Just because it was fun for a bit to see if alternate COPs were easy to make work, or if this was fairly difficult.
    In general, the idea was to see what the effects of increasing the total emissivity over that used in Plot 1(ie: semi transparent alumina plus the possible SW IR effects of interior metals) on calculating total power output were.


    FYI: I came to my earlier conclusions (< 900°C, and possibly as low as 780°C) as a result of trying to defend the Lugano report from the assertions of Thomas C. I spent weeks trying to find where he went wrong. Unfortunately I was not able to come up with anything consistent with real physics anfd mathematics that could successfully undermine his assumptions other than the indeterminable transparency-related radiance and possibly a weak increase in the total emissivity. I also spent considerable time before that trying to prove that the power input was not ~3000W as some claimed, and that instead the ~900W (as reported) was possible and mathematically consistent with the dummy values and calculation methods (hoping that this might prove the >1 COP had occurred). I was successful in this to the point of making a hypothesis that was mathematically consistent, but this result was in turn undermined by the emissivity issue.


    So I have done everything I could do within reason to show that the Lugano report showed an excess of heat energy over electrical output. But I can no longer support the Lugano report conclusions.
    The omissions of important information, omission of proper calibration, absence of measurement corroboration, and improper use of calculation methods make the report indefensible in its present state.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Actually, I arrived at my calculations using multiple radiance-convection calculators



    Paradigmoia you are doing what is called a Bluff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluff_(poker</a>) <br>
    The multiple radiance and convection (dividing the reactor in multiple zones) calculations have been done by the Authors of the report not by you. Come on be serious (if you can) you never wanted to defend the report ! Read your own posting!


    As stated many times POWER and emissivity are weakly dependent variables because the same emissivity is used by the camera software to calculate temperature (from power detected by camera bolometers) and then back to recalculate power.


    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    I spent weeks trying to find where he went wrong.

    Mr. Clarke was wrong because he was misunderstanding the concept and the use of the emissivity even using arbitrary different values in the calculations. There was quite a discussion on that forum. Should we repeat it again ?



    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    The omissions of important information


    YOU are omitting important information ! The Authors of the report have described in detail their analysis process. NOT YOU.
    You are making affirmations without showing any analysis method, so your numbers have no scientific meaning.
    As stated ANY scientific paper can criticized in that way !

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    So I have done everything I could do within reason to show that the Lugano report showed an excess of heat energy over electrical output. But I can no longer support the Lugano report conclusions.
    The omissions of important information, omission of proper calibration, absence of measurement corroboration, and improper use of calculation methods make the report indefensible in its present state.



    Your conclusion is completely correct: The report is fuss because of the missing 900W baseline.


    Thomas Clarks assumptions are the same fuss, because he cannot explain why the heat emission of the rods (calibration/test) shows a large increase (test) of the rod emission. This is not in line with his 900W assumption and also not in line with the mfp "dummy test" which shows a much lower rod T at 900W!! As long as you cannot measure the LUGANO alumina, any word spent is going down the river.


    So this is the final conclusion: Everybody who claims a fact is lying!

    Hi Dewey,
    Is there any chance you know how the alumina cement was applied over the heating element? It seems from photos that it was manually applied with a profiled spreader to create the "cooling fins". If this was so then the recesses in the alumina would offer near zero filtering to emisions from the heater. This would also explain the odd banding visible on the unfueled dummy reactor.

    The Lugano reactor was molded in a silicon rubber compound using a threaded metal rod as the base. Cotronics Durapot 810 Powder was the alumina cement compound with a dielectric strength of 270v/mil and a volume resistivity of 1010 ohm-cm at room temp.


    Resistance wire was from Hyndman Industrial Products, part number 167660-14. Res .2650 Ohms/Ft. .0571 diameter, alloy KA1, Heat# B381142. This was tightly twisted into a pair by IH.


    Happy hunting.

    @randombit0,
    My postings go back several years. Not neccesarily on this forum.


    Mr. Clarke's understanding of emissivity is just fine. I originally did not understand why there were two emissivity functions. Once I came to a full comprehension of the issue, then the error in the report was clear. I guess you are not there yet.


    I am not bluffing, and I have also already supplied links to both calculators available free online. One is from the NASA website. Anyone can insert the values and get the same answers I did, within a limited range of uncertainty.


    You can repeat your point forever, but it does not prove anything. It does not supply any evidence.
    The report does not provide sufficient evidence to stand on its own.


    I also hereby retract my point about transparency. There is sufficient optical thickness, in my opinion, and also based on research, that the internal refraction will cause absorption of the short wave IR, and distribute it into the phononic resonance. For the vast majority of the underlying materials, anyways. The effect of transmissivity on radiant output is insignificant in this case. This means that the output is very extremely unlikely to exceed a COP of 1.

    Dewey


    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    The Lugano reactor was molded in a silicon rubber compound using a threaded metal rod as the base. Cotronics Durapot 810 Powder was the alumina cement compound with a dielectric strength of 270v/mil and a volume resistivity of 1010 ohm-cm at room temp.


    Resistance wire was from Hyndman Industrial Products, part number 167660-14. Res .2650 Ohms/Ft. .0571 diameter, alloy KA1, Heat# B381142. This was tightly twisted into a pair by IH.


    So why would a 'scammer' go to that trouble, Another reason to reject everything you say.


    Best regards
    Frank

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.