The Playground

  • Thank you for understanding.


    My observation (which can be indeed wrong) is, Mr. Walker is chiropractic by profession, he's family oriented and otherwise he is pro-social


    Must be another Eric Walker. My relevant training is in computer science and mathematics at the undergraduate level.

  • ABD Watch

    As the real Emperor Napoleon* would no doubt attest, it's pretty damn boring being stuck on your own island. So boring in fact, that to pass the time one can trawl through the many pages of the user list here, and tally up exactly who has been banned, in the process effectively christening yourself as "King of the Trolls".


     http://coldfusioncommunity.net…-is-banned-on-lenr-forum/


    Other highlights include lengthy bleatings about the LENR-forum update, and the now standard lecturing of the moderators here for the gross impertinence of not "sharing power" with the community. (ie. not sharing power with him...)


    Also - An honourable mention to Peter Gluck, who despite his permanently brken keybord, still managed to type out the most polite "TL:DR" comment ever, underneath another distended instalment of swollen prose. (Actually two instalments, if you include the omnipresent biographical sign-off).



    * Abd, sorry if you inferred that planet-blomax.com was "rapidly becoming your St Helena" because I felt you would die there. It was more that only whilst on Elba was Napoleon still able to raise a rebel army, and afterwards reimpose his will over France.

  • Here is a link about how/where atoms are created. Not on the LENR topic but good for the playground.


    @Riegel: Just one hint: If you find time to read/study R.Mills theory, which is highly exact in many respects, also with his space-time metric, the you will understand that there never was a big bang creation (fusion) phase....

  • Wyttenbach,

    While I respect your opinion, I do not always agree with it. But I have looked at it (Mills hydrinos) but not studied it. One thing about me (how I think) is that I never accept one concept as absolute. I think of things/theories/experimental evidence as being either primary likely, or secondary likely but needing to be verified. But since I do not know of it, I will spend some more time.


    My problem is that he ties everything into hydrinos. There is no doubt that he is highly intelligent. My problem is that his current Suncell is not a year from production nor OU, so that claim is disingenuous. The reason I say that is disingenuous is that I have brought things to market, and part of this is called the "pony" show where progress is shown, then a powerpoint usually with astronomical numbers for growth revenue potential etc. is then focused on. Funding is always king.


    His self sustain mode video was losing energy over time as it continued, and his method of using focused PV arrays when it is a blackbody is also suspect. But anyway I do respect your opinion you seem one of the people that stick to the point. So I will give it another shot.

  • Wyttenbach,

    While I respect your opinion, I do not always agree with it. But I have looked at it (Mills hydrinos) but not studied it. One thing about me (how I think) is that I never accept one concept as absolute. I think of things/theories/experimental evidence as being either primary likely, or secondary likely but needing to be verified. But since I do not know of it, I will spend some more time.


    That's the general notion of Mills = hydrino. Just tear these pages out and read the rest!! Then make up your mind again!


    As a small tasty starter, look at the few pages (starting at p.258 - chapt 7) covering the H- ion. Very impressive and simple!

  • And what else would you expect? The evidence, that Andrea Rossi has real technology in hands are numerous.

    We may discuss, if he is able to control it, to make profitable the more - but the signs of new physics are definitely there.

    Some people apparently cannot handle the fact, that the truth is not often just black or white - it's gray and its tint depends on the illumination.

    The fact that A. Rossi isn't trustworthy doesn't imply, he must be completely wrong in everything.

  • Zephir_AWT ,

    OK, what are the evidences then? Which ones are reliable?

    Certainly there are many anecdotal reports, and some inconclusive reports that could be included in such a list...


    But "all the evidence" is not in favor of the Rossi "having the goods".

    Unless, perhaps, "having the goods" is the low-redefined version of "maybe has or did have something at some point". (I'm not sure how to deal with that properly.)

  • Zephir,

    I have noticed you calling for bans on people. I am aware that you have been banned (or so I have read) on /r/physics multiple times. Is this true? I also noticed you being rather polite and to the point on r/emdrive and had a user(s) in both /r/physics and /r/emdrive where swearing or any combinations of words can be uttered. I almost defended you on the /emdrive thread when some jerks said and I paraphrase you don't know s*it about physics. Do you remember a username called f**kyou_Zeph on one of the subreddits?

    This is hideous that they allow that crap.


    Since you claim to be a scientist does this extend to psychology also? If not how do you explain your post? Do you recall any convos on phys.org from ghost of otto or skippy?

    I ask you can we keep it where you do not say he is full of bs ? Just question ones statements and references. You both are advocates for your theories and can be educational. If you do not like someone how about blocking them? Let others speak for themselves. I would not want to lose either one of you to escalation. Don't get too wrapped up in something you would not want to happen to you okay?

  • I don't care about personal questions, voting and banning wars very much, but the banning of trolls like the f**kyou_Zeph is the only option how to handle them - they have their own agenda irrelevant of actual subject of any thread. Personally I don't give sh*t what such people are saying about me or anyone else, if they're personal or not: once they're off-topic, they're just spammers and they must leave off.


    Quote

    This is hideous that they allow that crap.


    This is just a matter of groupthink. Before /r/EMDrive got some credit at reddit, I have been considered as such crap too with my critique of mainstream theories and research attitude (and the cold fusion is still considered a crap at both /r/Science, both /r/Physics). So that the f**kyou_Zeph did dirty work for moderators of /r/Physics forum: If they couldn't oppose me with arguments, they needed someone, who would comment every post of mine with some fallacy. The current Kremlin bots are also payed just for repeating sentences "Obama is warmonger, Hillary for prison" in every thread, no matter of actual subject of discussion. The fabrication of enemy is primitive subliminal approach, but it works - most of people soon or later got sick of it and they called for banning me from forum, because they perceived me as an primary culprit of all this mess.

  • Zephir_AWT ,

    Agreed that the Lugano isotopes are hard to explain (without a sneaky swap scenario), but the isotopic change is also difficult to explain also when the excess heat is essentially eliminated by correcting the emissivity error.


    As for Levi et al 2013 (Indication of...), the electrical power measurements, although recorded on video, are not available to us to evaluate. I did find a minor T4 calculation in the first test, which reduces the excess to about 5.0 (but still using the rather high ε of 1.0). Also notable is that the first test is described as having a delta-wound resistor set-up (bottom paragraph page 3), but a series connection seems to visible on the image on page 5.

  • Quote

    when the excess heat is essentially eliminated by correcting the emissivity error


    This doesn't explain, how the COP could change during experiment and even how it could rise, when the temperature of reactor also raised.

    The increase of temperature would lead into increase of thermal loses and if they got systematically underestimated (because of lower emisivity or nonplanar geometry of the reactor), then their increased underestimation should also lead into lowering of COP - which didn't actually happen.


    bLRDEi3.gif

  • Zephir_AWT ,

    The COP changes and rise with heat is a complicated relationship affected by some pecularities of the data manipulations in the Lugano test. I don't have the time at the moment to go through the whole thing.

    The re-iterative emissivity method slides the camera emissivity value around a bit, while the wrong camera emissivity magnifies the reported temperature, which feedbacks through the re-iterative emissivity value used for output power calculations.

  • COP changes and rise with heat is a complicated relationship

    Paradigmoia,


    We have discussed all that along ago. The real fact is that all the mumbling about emissivity errors is without any foundation.

    For example you omitted to note ( as usual ) that the emitted energy vs emissivity dependence is weak.

    The iterative process has nothing to do with the COP rise.

    Lugano is valid.

    I would ask you to avoid to repeat false and misleading information. Otherwise,,,, no problem here I'm to discuss again an again,

  • rb0 ,

    I will repeat again and again, that the Lugano emissivity error is a real error, and can very easily be tested without much skill or expense.


    In fact it is incredibly easy to demonstrate a COP >1, even up to a COP of nearly 4 without using any fuel whatsoever, using the Conflated Total Hemispherical and Spectral Normal Emissivity Method.

  • This doesn't explain, how the COP could change during experiment and even how it could rise, when the temperature of reactor also raised.

    The increase of temperature would lead into increase of thermal loses and if they got systematically underestimated (because of lower emisivity or nonplanar geometry of the reactor), then their increased underestimation should also lead into lowering of COP - which didn't actually happen.


    bLRDEi3.gif


    Zeph -


    You have been consistently and strongly saying there is much evidence Rossi's stuff works, those who don't see this are willfully blind, etc.


    I am happy to consider this evidence, with you at length. So that any blindness can be considered. It is important that we be careful doing this because as I'm sure you know anecdotes and web facts (not to mention now alternative facts) often look different when examined in detail.


    I'll start with your impressive graphs above. First, I'll agree with you. They are impressive. When you first look at the Lugano evidence, although you might reckon there are a bunch of mistakes that could account for the claims, this acceleration in COP where 100W in turns into 600W out, is quite something.


    As Paradigmnoia says, the numbers show this to be an artifact but i expect you think he is willfully blind. Certainly P has not now justified his position, though as he and I point out there are hundreds of pages here doing exactly that. In many of which P was arguing your side. So this is a matter that has been hotly debated and the consensus now reached amongst those who stuck through that debate might count for something.


    I'm going now to give as simple an answer as i can to this X6.


    Firstly, the known issues about emissivity account for the approx X3 COP, which turns 800W into 2400W. The output power is indirectly measured via temperature and scales as T^4. The temperature was massively over-estimated via its indirect measurement and the problematic Al2O3 surface used.


    Secondly, and this is the issue I will address at length here, the way that thermography error operates is quite subtle and leads to surprising results. In fact it leads (using the figures from the Lugano report, but correcting the errror) exactly the COP acceleration that is shown in your graphs.


    If you want to validate this it is not so difficult:


    Take the code from TC's report (as found on lenr-canr) and run it, to generate numerical results. There are various fudge factors which can move the COP up or down by 20% or so. The code as given shows this by printing COP figures bracketed with different values of fudge. BUT - these don't affect the COP acceleration (because most have nearly the same affect at the two test temperatures). What is remarkable is that this acceleration goes away when COP is correctly calculated and the two COPs become identical to within 0.5%. This lack of change is resilient as you alter the various fudge factors. BTW what I mean by fudge factors is that you need a few assumptions to get any results from Lugano. Change those assumptions you alter the COP results. But not the COP acceleration. The Lugano authors were aware of this which is why the noted this acceleration as particularly significant. Except it is not because it is an artifact when things are calculated correctly.


    So that is the numerical answer, based on Lugano figures. Can it be explained theoretically. The key to understanding this is that total emissivity in Al2O3, changes rapidly over the range of temperatures calculated in Lugano here. The report uses this change in total emissivity (because they feed it into the Optris device) to calculate temperature. That gives an error because ove rthe same range band emissivity does not change and stas close to 1. Therefore the inflation of temperature their wrong method generates depends strongly (and nonlinearly) on the temperature - because it comes from the difference between total and band emissivity which is much larger at higher temperatures than low.


    it is in reality not COP acceleration - but "Levi thermography artifact acceleration". (I attribute this to Levi since when last heard of he was still to Mats robustly defending this flawed method - he seems very invested in it).


    PS - I realise you quote other evidence. And that this other evidence must also be examined in detail. Could we however first please deal with Lugano? I'll happily lead you through either running the python code, or any of the theoretical equations it embodies.


  • rb0. Have you actually duplicated the numerical calculations in TC's report, or linked those to the equations therein? I have. Like to discuss?


    Or, if we are just playing PR word games let me point out that you have repeated your view on here many times and patiently by various posters been led through what are your misconceptions. each time when we get to the nub of it you vanish. Only to pop up a few weeks later making the same statements. That is the behaviour of a propagandist, and I have no sympathy with it.


    "The emitted energy vs emissivity dependence is weak". That is only true if, as you have consistently misstated, there is only one emissivity value of interest here. It is true that the band emissivity change and total emissivity change alter COP in opposite directions. What you neglect is that over the relevant temperatures band emissivity does not change, and over the relevant (used in the Lugano report) temperatures total emissivity changes a lot. From 0.8 to 0.4.

  • My point was, that no-matter how the actual yield of Lugano heat has been underestimated or overestimated, the yield should change with rising temperature monotonously - i.e. increase or decrease.

    Once another artificial source of heat or heat loss would be involved, then this simple rule would be broken - which is what we can observe in data.

    That means, I don't object the possibility of various systematical errors in evaluation of Lugano test - but after then these errors should also behave systematically.

    And you don't need any Python code and original data available for such an conclusion.

  • Zephir_AWT


    A simple way of thinking about band vs. total emissivity -which might not be entirely accurate but works for me - is to look at the factors and complication surrounding the emissivity of a tungsten filament lamp. http://pyrometry.com/farassociates_tungstenfilaments.pdf


    Never forget btw that the electrical resistance of tungsten changes hugely with changing temperatures. In this document -also based on tungsten you can see how the COP (ha!) improves dramatically with temperature. Double the current can give 30x improvement in radiation - for some temperatures at least. This last btw, hails from Italy.:);)

    http://studenti.fisica.unifi.i…re_scale_for_tungsten.pdf

  • My point was, that no-matter how the actual yield of Lugano heat has been underestimated or overestimated, the yield should change with rising temperature monotonously - i.e. increase or decrease.

    Once another artificial source of heat or heat loss would be involved, then this simple rule would be broken - which is what we can observe in data.

    That means, I don't object the possibility of various systematical errors in evaluation of Lugano test - but after then these errors should also behave systematically.

    And you don't need any Python code and original data available for such an conclusion.


    Zephir, read this quote from THHyxley again:


    THHuxleyNew wrote:

    The key to understanding this is that total emissivity in Al2O3, changes rapidly over the range of temperatures calculated in Lugano here. The report uses this change in total emissivity (because they feed it into the Optris device) to calculate temperature. That gives an error because ove rthe same range band emissivity does not change and stas close to 1. Therefore the inflation of temperature their wrong method generates depends strongly (and nonlinearly) on the temperature - because it comes from the difference between total and band emissivity which is much larger at higher temperatures than low.


    The error in calculations in the Lugano report is strongly dependent on the temperature. That is why the COP seems to increase when the temperature gets higher.


    And the really interesting part is that when Tomas Clarce analyzed the temperature dependency of this error it almost exactly match the results in your grafs.

  • Or, if we are just playing PR word games let me point out that you have repeated your view on here many times and patiently by various posters been led through what are your misconceptions. each time when we get to the nub of it you vanish. Only to pop up a few weeks later making the same statements. That is the behaviour of a propagandist, and I have no sympathy with it.


    @THH: Did you correct your report using the correct Optris formula with T3 emissivity? Or do you still base it on your wierd assumptions - like T2.. ??


    Fixed the name for you. Eric

  • @THH: Did TC's report use the correct Optris formula with T3 emissivity? Or does it base it on your wierd assumptions - like T2.. ??


    Reading TC's report, the only assumption he makes is that the Optris camera correctly combines band emissivity with temperature according to the Planck curve. If it does not do this it will simply deliver wrong results for band emissivity not equal to 1. Since over the temperature range the correct dependence (T on epsilon) varies from approx 1 to 0.1 or less it is just not possible that the camera uses a single figure, as you claim. You have no evidence for this except a manual written in German which is illustrating how the camera works, not specifying its precise operation. Note that were you correct, the camera accuracy would be out by 50% or more for some cases, so this cannot be. The TC report does not explicitly state what dependence is used here because for all the figures it is worked out from first principles from the Planck curve - it will therefore be (slightly) different in each case. however looking at the figures I think T should depend on epsilon by somewhere around 0.5, or epsilon on T (what you quote I think) by something around 2.

  • I'll just add that I bypassed a bunch of TC's work by power curve matching using the USGS-NASA radiance calculator, and the results are in almost perfect agreement with TC's results (usually within about 20 W or so). This method also predicted the temperatures that the MFMP reported when changing the Optris emissivity settings, recorded on video.


    I also was able to defeat the transparency idea (I thought maybe there could be hidden excess there).


    Both results were contrary to my expectations that the Lugano report could be saved from the detractors. This after extensive arguing and eventually demonstrating that the electrical power values reported are possible, and not three times higher than reported.

  • And roller skates remind me childhood, flash games and home. From time to time I play games . .... it helps me to distract from the bad thoughts. And positive thinking always helps to make new discoveries. Take care



    Post edited to remove casino (?) link. Advertising of this kind is not welcome. Alan.

  • T (what you quote I think) by something around 2.


    @THH : What is obviously wrong: Bdw: I did dot read the manual: I asked Optris tech support... Something you never did and as a 'serious' expert should have done first hand...


    Don't start a new trolling discussion. With the correct formula everything is in line with Levi and Foccardi results, something you ( and PMGN) don't like to see...


    (And what also clearly shows that Rossi had never more than the others had before he started..)



    Edited once again. You've repeatedly failed to respect forum participants' wishes to remain anonymous and been corrected several times. You're now on a two-day vacation. Eric