Frank - yep - I was in a meeting alright. What did I miss? BTW, did I share yet via my interplanetary secure tappertyper using Keui's credentials that it was a very interesting meeting?
Have a nice vacation and hurry back.
All my very best,
Dewey
The Playground
-
-
lan,
I know you are just passing along information. On the face of it, it seems compelling.
Compelling or no Jack...I can only repeat my earlier answer - "I have no strong opinions on this matter......... I was merely reporting facts about events as I understand them. Who is right and who is wrong is a game for others."
-
Dewey
Frank - yep - I was in a meeting alright. What did I miss? BTW, did I share yet via my interplanetary secure tappertyper using Keui's credentials that it was a very interesting meeting?
Have a nice vacation and hurry back.
All my very best,
DeweyThanks for your kind wishes, yes I will be away for a few days. Can't seem to get the interplanetary deals you do though, but then I don't have a 'social engineering bunker' with the IP to surf the planetary wide web like you. How did you get that IP by the way?
Anyway Shalom and
Best regards
Frank -
What the Wye to Delta hypothesis can do, that none of the other hypotheses to date regarding the Lugano Joule heat disparity can do, is explain precisely the fraction attached to the 3 in the ratio comparisons of input heat to Joule heat. (ie; "3.3", 3.45) .
This is due to the way the C2 cables are configured and energized differently in the Delta and Wye configurations, (and in addition various calculation errors made by many people). The fraction cannot be made to go away except with a correct comparison, using correct Joule heat values, with a wye configuration instead of a delta but only for the dummy. The 3 however remains, demonstrating that the cable rearrangement was almost certainly done, for whatever reason. The high degree of consistency with these improved Joule heat and delta-wye calculations demonstrates that the electrical measurements (if not the calculations made from them) reported in the Lugano report are substantially accurate.
Some confusion has been introduced by not first subtracting the Joule heat W from the input electricity W (ie: TC's paper) before calculating ratios.
In addition, the Joule heat formula in the Lugano paper is incorrect for the delta configuration, which translates into slightly low Joule heat values for the active runs (and for the delta for the dummy if you cling to that explanation). This means that the active run Joule heat calculations needs to be reversed to extract the measured current values and re-calculated correctly.An inverted clamp does not provide the solution for the fraction included with 3 times Joule heat variance, but also implies very high current and therefore very high temperatures, which are contradicted by the thermogaphy problem.
-
An inverted clamp does not provide the solution for the fraction included with 3 times Joule heat variance, but also implies very high current and therefore very high temperatures, which are contradicted by the thermogaphy problem.I agree with the last sentence: it would be overkill to have both errors simultaneously.
But the inverted clamp perfectly fits the factor 2 for total reactor power vs. factor 6 for joule heating of the wires, since the latter is computed as 3 × RI^2 where I is the rms current on the PCE reading (unaffected by orientation) whereas total power is algebraically summed by the PCE (and 2 + 2 - 2 = 2). This was the reason for bringing it up originally. -
I undestand.
What I was doing was some calculations to see if the delta-wye hypothesis could be discounted or demonstrated more strongly.
I was able to demonstrate the source of the fraction that goes with the three using two complimentary methods.One method derives identically a 3.45 ratio from two sources, by comparing the results of the ratios for the delta and wye calculations of Joule heat in those configurations, using only the dummy values reported, and considering that the power is multiplied by 3 in a wye when using the same resistance and comparing to the corrected Joule heat values with a delta dummy.
The second method normalizes the Joule heat from the wye to a corrected Joule heat for a delta, and arrives at a 2.98 ratio, which is the overall resistance ratio between resistance-corrected delta-wye transformation for the same power.
Several other comparisons were made, with no matches to their complimentary routes, suggesting that these do not describe equivalent electrical descriptions.
There will be many complaints from some people about re-calculating Joule heat, how the resistances were derived, etc. However, the total result of all the work is that using delta-wye hypothesis the various methods cross-check each other, and are consistent with all reported measurements. I don't know how that can be achieved using another hypothesis.
I did start on a hypothetical version where the C2 cable pair connection to a C1 melts/burns totally open (ie: loose cable connection, no connection between paired C2's or either C2 to the C1), where the device was delta connected in both dummy and active runs. This results in only one resistor getting power in the active run, which would have to be fed the total power input. This requires substantial cover-up on behalf of the Professors, among other electrically complex differences. I don't believe that this particular hypothesis is at all likely, but I may continue modelling it to see what it looks like anyways.
-
I may continue modelling it to see what it looks like anyways.
we really need that ERV report...
-
it is trivial to construct the equivalent greybody spectrum
No is not trivial, my dear.
Camera transfer function is not so trivial. Also note (AGAIN) that camera bolometers detect IR power and convert it to temperature using the emissivity. If you use the same emissivity to calculate back the power(density) you should obtain the same values.
If you you obtain different figures.... check your calculations ! -
@randombit0,
Please elaborate. I don't get your meaning. -
we really need that ERV report...
Nah, I just need to do more work on my negative COP device.
-
The interplanetary monitoring system has intercepted another very interesting exchange between the overlord and the head of his PR/Slander/Libel department. What we've learned is that the overlord himself is modifying the reports and exchanges of his head of PR/Slander/Libel before posting on his blog. Caught him red-handed and the before and after deltas are shocking:
-
I appreciate your efforts, because I did the same. I had implemented a LTSpice simulation of the Lugano test environment, but recognized, that this only raises more questions without relevant answers.
You'll never be able to prove that the cabling really has been changed between dummy run and active test. And the same applies to other hypothesis.
A plausible explanation for the values could only be given by the authors of the Lugano Report.
Maybe you should simply ask "randombit0" to explain the joule heating values.
-
Do you even realize your conspiracy theory is the most unlikely there is, about Rossi?
Compare him to, let's say, Keshe, a bona fide scammer. Do they drain the same scientific and financial pool, for research and investment?
And ask yourselves: do you regularly see scams of this scale, which would justify the ongoing paranoia about Rossi?
Probably you don't, and both those facts hint at him having the tech he describes.To refute this through endless nitpicking only shows the insecurity of sceptics, or the blatant dishonesty of disgruntled commercial partners.
-
Stephen - I am not required to explain anything. I am just telling you what 5 physics professors and a senior technician plus an unknown number of their colleagues did. With all due respect, MFMP doesn't have that firepower.
So personal status is more important than knowledge and reliable experiments?
-
Hello Peter! Welcome back- i was concerned we might have lost you somewhere in the fog of somebody's war.
So personal status is more important than knowledge and reliable experiments?
Not at all- not what I meant. Good experiments beat a job-title any day, but there is also a balance of probabilities to be considered. Anyway, I really don't care about that particular issue - it has grown into a monster nit-pick I find pointless. I just wanted to throw a real fact (the re-check) into the cauldron.
-
@Tom Paulsen,
The proof can be as simple as photos of the cables in dummy and active modes. Supposedly the entire event was filmed, as well as all data logged. There are plenty of evidence yet to surface.Agreed that no amount of maths will convince most people in this case, unless they do it themselves, and quite diligently. I have left plenty of pieces of the puzzle around and you are one of the few that has commented at all on it (and were not in agreement about some aspects) and yet much of the info has been downloaded dozens of times. Unless I spoon feed the works in some sort of mathematical pablum, the masses will not even consider the evidence, but merely look at the conclusion, probably discarding it if it does not support their world view. The manipulations of the data is also substantial and it can be argued that it has been bent to satisfy the ends. This was not the case, but is also impossible to defend, so I have no desire to write an ugly paper on the subject. Merely I wish to find out the actual circumstances (with good evidence) to see if I was able to unravel the mystery.
-
If you use the same emissivity to calculate back the power(density) you should obtain the same values.
That is right, you get the same power density in the IR spectrum. But you don't know the power density elsewhere so this doesn't help.
However if you know temperature you can apply Boltzmann's law to know total radiated power without knowing the power spectral density elsewhere. And to know temperature for a given IR detected power you should use IR spectral emissivity, preferably determined with a calibration. -
If understand the point of randombit, then perhaps the comment was made before seeing the radiance calculator image that I posted a little later than my main comment. The first temperature is 1410 C, but in Kelvin for the calculator.
I also tested this by using the MFMP data from their test, with which it agrees almost perfectly.
In addition, I did some of my own tests with an alumina glow tube. Also very good agreement, but not as good as the MFMP data, probably since my IR pointer is not as high quality as an Optris.
-
Hello Peter! Welcome back- i was concerned we might have lost you somewhere in the fog of somebody's war.
Thanks Alan! I have trouble keeping up with the sheer volume of posts, and I do not want to repeat what has already been said. I have some fun things in the pipeline, though. -
Quote
Do you even realize your conspiracy theory is the most unlikely there is, about Rossi?
Compare him to, let's say, Keshe, a bona fide scammer. Do they drain the same scientific and financial pool, for research and investment?
And ask yourselves: do you regularly see scams of this scale, which would justify the ongoing paranoia about Rossi?
Probably you don't, and both those facts hint at him having the tech he describes.To refute this through endless nitpicking only shows the insecurity of sceptics, or the blatant dishonesty of disgruntled commercial partners.
This makes no sense at all. Maybe you can explain it better? Rossi is better at what he does than Keshe but it's the same game. And what difference does scale make? Madoff was unique in scale but Ponzi schemes are very common. There is no valid evidence that Rossi has or ever had anything that worked. The fanciful QUarkX is the ultimate attempt to select out believers who know little or nothing about scientific method and physics. Rossi seems desperate for new funds. I doubt that he will get them.
