NanoFrankieWTF - $10M for a powder mix that doesn't work is not an IP transfer but I don't expect that you're going to be able to properly process that fact at all.
Have you tried catnip? You need to try something and perhaps an adjustment in your supplements is in order.
Andrea.s
The French Quatre-Quart cake is a version of the British Pound cake, the ingredients and IP were misappropriated during the Napoleonic wars when we agreed to share this information under licence. At the time it was claimed the ingredients did not work and could never be made to work and so we were never paid the full amount for the licence, but of course, now we have the Quatre-Quate cake, a different name for the same thing!
Best regards
Frank
@D'eaver
NanoFrankieWTF
Running our of ideas? Why not make them up? Oh, you have been doing sorry.
Best regards
Frank
The French Quatre-Quart cake is a version of the British Pound cake, the ingredients and IP were misappropriated during the Napoleonic wars...
Frank don't get me started now... a French colleague at the canteen in Rome said potato gnocchi is a French specialty as they were first introduced in Nice.
Sure, as if Nice were French before Napoleon..
NanoFrankieWTF - $10M for a powder mix that doesn't work is not an IP transfer but I don't expect that you're going to be able to properly process that fact at all.
Have you tried catnip? You need to try something and perhaps an adjustment in your supplements is in order.
The powder is just one piece of the puzzle. The EMF trigger signal is also required. I a surprised that Fabiani has not helped your powder expert in the production of that signal to lite off the powder since he built the control system for Rossi. Did Fabiani screw IH over?
Lugano worked to some degree. The control signal was used there. One more thing, Rossi's activator reactor has a very low COP for control reasons. It is the multi reactor activation system that produces usable power. Has this confused IH?
Lugano worked to some degree. The control signal was used there. One more thing, Rossi's activator reactor has a very low COP for control reasons. It is the multi reactor activation system that produces usable power. Has this confused IH?
What was "strange" is that Rossi accepted the wrong result, the wrong temperature, fact that he could not ignore. There would be many reasons (variations around moderate lack of ethic, like not wanting to induce miunderstanding, pride, fooling the USPTO), but since IH behavior show it does not work, this problems is more easy to understand.
What was "strange" is that Rossi accepted the wrong result, the wrong temperature, fact that he could not ignore. There would be many reasons (variations around moderate lack of ethic, like not wanting to induce miunderstanding, pride, fooling the USPTO), but since IH behavior show it does not work, this problems is more easy to understand.
This lack of forthcomingness pissed be off. Rossi knew that the COP produced by the Lugano reactor was way to high and yet he said nothing. Maybe Rossi thinks that if you don't say anything to correct and error, it is ethical behavior. Maybe like Bill Clinton, Rossi was trained by Jesuits.
Andrea.s said
QuoteTo drastically change the setup connection and not to declare it, seems too "unscientific"
Agreed. I only like this idea because it satisfies the math. I welcome any alternative hypothesis that is consistent with the data supplied. To switch from wye to delta would require a specific rearrangement of the wires. For the wye, this means connecting three C2 leads together, presumably after passing them through the rods. This would be quite peculiar, especially to begin with. All the electrical supply would be fed into one end of the reactor using the C1 and C2 cables.
The delta arrangement would almost be elegant in comparison to a bunch of long wires going almost nowhere on one end.
Some better photos of the dummy and active tests would be helpful in eliminating the delta-wye hypothesis as a contender.
As far as the coil calculator goes, I have used it numerous times for big coils, and it works great. It is remarkably effective.
Has Lugano ever been reviewed by an expert in the calorimetry used in the report?
Randombit0 claims that experience and she tells us that lugano test is done by the book. The frustration is that most reviewers here are people with no practical professional experience. They don't put their career on the line like the Lugano test team.
AFAIK because of the criticisms, ALL those involved in the Lugano experiment went through their data with a fine toothcomb, and passed it to uninvolved colleagues for cross-checking. There were comments on the ash sampling and the lack of an exact control system, but the basic data all passed examination. This exercise is being repeated I believe. There is no intention to engage with the nay-sayers and right-fighters like Thomas Clark, which they consider to be a waste of time.
The Lugano emissivity settings have been independently tested with a finding that Levi's settings IR camera adjustments were materially low. This group is expert in thermal and emissivity matters. Just to make sure that we have covered our bases, yet another expert group is repeating this process. No I cannot share the numbers as this pertains to the IH legal defense in the Rossi civil litigation.
Randombit0 claims that experience and she tells us that lugano test is done by the book.
No way Jose! They did not even calibrate up to and through the range of temperatures and power levels they later ran at. That's a violation of rule one in isoperibolic calorimetry.
The frustration is that most reviewers here are people with no practical professional experience.
McKubre has loads of experience. He pointed out the problem I just did, and many others:
Has Lugano ever been reviewed by an expert in the calorimetry used in the report?
Randombit0 claims that experience and she tells us that lugano test is done by the book.
Randombit0 is most likely expert in the mistaken calorimetry used in the report, to the point that one wonders whether she designed herself the experiment. She fails to understand, or at least won't admit, that the camera is a narrow-band sensor (an octave roughly), and that the spectral emissivity weighted average over its range of detection will only match the total emissivity for a perfectly grey body, which alumina is not. Dewey mentions a IH team which I know nothing about, but the error was clearly proven experimentally by MFMP in a live broadcast.
In regards to the Andrea.S comment above, in the science of the dispute thread I posted a link and time for the emissivity test by the MFMP, where they successfully demonstrate an approximate COP of 3 with an un-fuelled Lugano-like device (complete with fins) by setting the camera emissivity function to the value used for Lugano.
I welcome any alternative hypothesis that is consistent with the data supplied.
One possibility I considered was that the testers initially ran the reactor too high (around 3kW), causing meltdown of the coils on a hotspot in the center of the dogbone (would need to largely exceed 1400°C). The triple coil would then collapse to a wye with two parallel resistors from each conductor C2 to the common virtual ground node, each roughly half the original 1.23 ohm, i.e. 0.62 ohm. Resulting power would however still be around 2 kW when adjusting the phase angle to provide a current (48mA rms) consistent with the Joule heating declared. This is too big an error vs. the declared 900W.
I wonder what happened to the used reactors: wasn't there at least an inspection after the endurance test? one would want to run a Destructive Physical Analysis to assess what damage if any resulted from the life test.
And I guess Dewey will tell us one day what the internal temperatures were.
Has Lugano ever been reviewed by an expert in the calorimetry used in the report?
Randombit0 claims that experience and she tells us that lugano test is done by the book. The frustration is that most reviewers here are people with no practical professional experience. They don't put their career on the line like the Lugano test team.
No big surprise that Randombit0 claims experience and confirms the Lugano test to be accurate. There is no one in this world more affected by the accuracy of that test than randombit0.
AFAIK because of the criticisms, ALL those involved in the Lugano experiment went through their data with a fine toothcomb, and passed it to uninvolved colleagues for cross-checking. There were comments on the ash sampling and the lack of an exact control system, but the basic data all passed examination. This exercise is being repeated I believe. There is no intention to engage with the nay-sayers and right-fighters like Thomas Clark, which they consider to be a waste of time.
Alan, if all basic data passed examination, how do you explain MFMP achieving a COP of ~3 with an unfueled Lugano style device when the camera emissivity value was set to that which was used in the Lugano test? I think this is a huge detail that Rossi supporters always seem to conveniently ignore.
Many thanks for that valuable information Dewey.
Wow big boys you had fun during the weekend ! One question. If any of you had accidentally read the report would had noticed that the Authors had analyzed the alumina cement from the reactor using x ray diffraction.The analysis was done by people not involved with report work.So the reactor material was well known or better to say they preferred to scientifically find which was the material instead of trusting Rossi, or any other involved.How can you trust any information coming from a stake holder two years after the experiment ? This is NOT a good practice !
And then if you have to test a reactor device you have two choices:
A) to use two similar devices one "loaded" and one empty and compare the results or
B) to use the same device empty and "loaded".
Because the Lugano device was a prototype A) was not a option. So they have chosen B) and of course they had to disconnect and then reconnect again the reactor. They have not changed the setup apart from loading the reactor.
And please, Paradigmoia. Do not "fart" (using your language) any more ! The numbers you are giving are just good for pleasing Mr. Weaver or "IH Football fans" not for Science.
How you pretend to obtain them if you have no idea about the camera calibration ?
And AGAIN any IR camera and sensor has a window of sensitivity and what is quite interesting detector response in not constant in that window and depends also on used optics. That's why is necessary a calibration file, obtained in factory using a Black Body source, in order to use the camera.
I would not respond to the "Bully" (men pretend always to "show muscles" to hide their fear) consideration about what I'm expert on, but our company have a sufficient number of Scientist and Engineers (even men!) to have a good know in any type of IR measurement (also from Space).
One possibility I considered was that the testers initially ran the reactor too high (around 3kW)
Hello Andrea,.... I already answered you that your 3kW exist only in your fantasy! Also come on and be serious !
Have you ever seen a melt down so precise to transform a Delta to wye without destroying the resistors ?
Have you ever been in a laboratory ? (as a Scientist)
@randombit0,
I don't need the specifc camera calibration, if the camera calibration is good. I trust that Optris does a fine job of calibration.
Therefore, if the Optris camera derives a certain temperature based on an integrated radiance within it's spectral range of sensitivity at a known user ε, it is trivial to construct the equivalent greybody spectrum that the camera based its determination on within the spectral sensitivity range of the camera. (This need not be exactly the perfect spectral output from the original hot surface that was tested, since the camera calibration is determined to be sufficient to make an idealized equivalent). It only need be the idealized greybody equivalent. The camera does as best a job possible of integrating this equivalent to make accurate temperature calculations, within the limits of it's technology.
Once this equivalent greybody spectrum to that used by the camera to determine the temperature has been identified, it is simply a matter of matching as close as possible the equivalent radiant spectrum at discrete temperature - user emissivity dependent settings. In this way the temperature the camera would report for the same radiance, but using a different user emissivity function can be found.
