The Playground

Quote from rb0

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,

Display More

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.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

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:

Quote from THHuxleyNew

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.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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

Quote from Wyttenbach

@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.

Rather off topic, but every time I see RB0 post, the song "Brand New Key" comes to mind. Not sure why...

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.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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

Wyttenbach ,

Since we are going around in circles a bit, below is the link to your post about Optris had to say to you. Just so it is easier to refresh the conversation about what that was about.

Some Points Regarding a Recent Presentation at ICCF20 on the ‘Lugano Report’ (Rainer Rander)

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Since we are going around in circles a bit, below is the link to your post about Optris had to say to you. Just so it is easier to refresh the conversation about what that was about.

Some Points Regarding a Recent Presentation at ICCF20 on the ‘Lugano Report’ (Rainer Rander)

Yes, good discussion.

I also talk in that thread about using the end cap data to estimate the rod section temperature. Zephir cited as evidence expectations regarding linear relationships. You can use linear relationships and disprove excess heat by looking at the data from the end caps.

TC and TH have shown direct problems with Lugano. MFMP and Para collected empirical data and conducted various analyses disproving the results. This is about as thoroughly debunked as one could hope for without involvement of the researchers who conducted the study.

@Jack Cole,

When you did your effort to duplicate Rossi's work how much did you spend on it? Do you still have the calorimetry devices that you used? (the box and TC's)

So I am clear do you want to part with them? I am thinking that if you have satisfied your desire to test in the NiH arena the test setup could be used again for another type of test such as Pd or maybe Homlid? (or even to satisfy someone who wants to test a new NiH device) My thoughts are to see if others would want a setup, and put an amount on your effort so you can recover $. Or if you want to keep it JIC maybe layout a parts/cost/supplier/howto . I remember it was very sweet setup.

*if you wish you can send me a pm or a chat.

Take care.

Quote from Rigel

Jack Cole,

When you did your effort to duplicate Rossi's work how much did you spend on it? Do you still have the calorimetry devices that you used? (the box and TC's)

So I am clear do you want to part with them? I am thinking that if you have satisfied your desire to test in the NiH arena the test setup could be used again for another type of test such as Pd or maybe Homlid? (or even to satisfy someone who wants to test a new NiH device) My thoughts are to see if others would want a setup, and put an amount on your effort so you can recover $. Or if you want to keep it JIC maybe layout a parts/cost/supplier/howto . I remember it was very sweet setup.

*if you wish you can send me a pm or a chat.

Take care.

Hi Rigel,

I'm not sure how much I spent on money--maybe $5000 or so. The main investment was an absurd amount of time. My setup has a lot of capability, but is probably not that user friendly for anyone else. I ran custom programming. If you are wanting to get started, I'd go with Alan's setup over at lookingforheat.com. He's done some amazing things there.

I still have my system in place. Jones Beene and I did a long-shot study that was vaguely Holmlid related with no luck, but I got to use my new conduction calorimeter. I am going to hold onto it, and maybe there will be something that will come along worth conducting additional experiments. Holmlid would be worth it, but unfortunately, it can't be done without a quite substantial investment.

Jack

@Jack Cole,

Jack it is great that you are working with Jones Beene he has great insight and I follow him on Vortex.

My earlier question to you, was not heading that direction about me personally getting your setup. Sorry if this was misleading or confusing.

I was thinking to just get a baseline on breakdown of the cost to see if we could crowdfund some of the folk here that are more theoretical than applied who also wish that they could test for themselves.

My thoughts ran along the line that they could use the calorimeter box that you have setup so they would have a decent way of verifying the output. But upon reflection as you have said LFH has similar things available.

My original thought was that if your kit was dormant, to reuse it somewhere in the local community. Just to keep the dream alive.

Thanks R

I read Abd's log. He has great insight into Rossi and since he writes about this forum, if possible I would like to mention his blog if its ok mod wise.

Here is a point that he made that I will paraphrase. Since Rossi has said that he would postpone the QuarkX demo until after the court case, this strongly implies that he has no other employees. Here is a link to the post. Abd-blog

This is quite telling if true (and to me it rings true). In my experience one person can come up with a product, but it is very hard. 2-6 or a small team can create products and often do. If he has no other employees it is very possible and plausible that -> 1). He does not have a plant being built with robots. 2). He is having a hard time with the three other older model e-cat plants that have been ordered. If they were shipped I would think that we would know. Another salient point is that he does not keep collaborators nor partners on a long term basis. While this is often explained by his difficulties based on his mistrust of being taken advantage of it does not ring true based on almost every relationship he has had. I ask myself where is Cook,Hydrofusion, the Lugano team and his other partners going back decades?

This is my speculation based on Abd's log and Rossi says and this forum. Since an earlier post where I put my foot in my _arggmouth without references so it is only my speculation.

I have a historical background in looking at OU devices, and this is how I found Rossi. I wanted to be true, I wished it to be true. But I try to have an open mind. We have a lot of smart people on this board looking at things from a 360⁰ viewpoint. I think we need to always question and in true physics for example we have shown great progression from Newton to Einstein on gravity. And this change in fundamental knowledge is always based on questioning existing theory. I recently asked everyone/anyone on evidence of NiH fusion.

And a few (Jed) among others kindly replied. I am trying to follow up on this and Mills btw.

Regarding NiH there is evidence of NiH working possibly (AP, Songsheng etc.) But to me very telling is that MFMP and BEC are having a hard go of it.

Hell in my heart of heart I still want ME356/MFMP to come trough. But beliefs are not always truths. They are just very very strong motivators. I understand when challenged that you need proof but you also need to not denigrate the person that you are trying to persuade. Finally some people here believe and support Rossi. I do not, and this is based on trying to verify both the pro and cons regarding presented facts.

/tl;dr

Rossi can not verify claims on e-cat and read linked url

"Live" From JONP:

• Bernard Koppenhofer January 28, 2017 at 4:01 AM

  Dr Rossi: What feed back are you getting from the company you sold three reactors to after the year long test?
  Thanks for answering our questions

• Andrea Rossi January 28, 2017 at 3:38 PM Bernard Koppenhofer:
  None yet.
  Warm Regards,
  A.R.

I like this kind of Q&A so much!

1. all satisfied customers, even 100% satisfied does not make them say "Thanks a lot, Doc! Nice piece of tech, saves us a lot of money, dude!)

2. customers are still in setup (-> How the hell does this "masterpiece" might get alive? Put in fuel, connect water pipes, plug it in, but, hmmm, errr, maybe need some "Rossi-Interaction" to run as promised. Why is the dotoran not answering our calls?)

3. no customers at all

Quote from Rigel

...this strongly implies that he has no other employees.

Just for fun, let's take a look what did Rossi claim 5 yeas ago:

Iggy Dalrymple, August 18th, 2012 at 9:55 PM
Dear Dr Rossi,
How many people are working to develop, improve, manufacture, and market the E-Cat and the Hot-Cat?
Sincerely,
Iggy Dalrymple

Andrea Rossi, August 19th, 2012 at 2:01 AM
Dear Iggy Dalrymple:
As of today we are 63 persons, and growing up (three years ago we were 3, two years ago we were 6, last year we were 13).
Warmest Regards,
A.R.

Quote from Alan Smith

Double the current can give 30x improvement in radiation - for some temperatures at least

In the Jones paper that you referenced, where did you get a factor of 30x and how does that relate to COP? I can maybe assume that you mean if you increase the current into the filament by a factor of 2 you get more emission by some factor (say 30) but that is not obvious from the data. I am also missing the reference to Italian remark as Jones worked at GE in the US and FAR Associates are in OH.

BTW: I was always confused by the discussion of emissivity vs. temperature vs. radiation. To me, emissivity is a fudge factor that makes radiation and temperature approach an ideal black body. If you just make emissivity 1, then you will always underestimate temperature. You can see that if you plot the Jones data and match it to a pure t^4 curve. The emissivity will vary to make the curves match.

What you need to work with Lugano data are the curves from the MFMP where you measure some reading with the camera and know the power input. To the extent that the MFMP mimicked Lugano (same type of materials (as this is very critical for these materials), camera, and same size structure, etc.) that data will avoid all the issues with emissivity. For example, it does not matter what the temperature is (as long as radiation dominates). You get a certain brightness from the camera at a given power input. For the MFMP data, I would have like to have seen them repeat the measurements under varying conditions so that I could get a feel for the errors, but I cannot request experiments that I do not take part in.

We can go into thought problems about emissivity and temperature but many of the forum readers do not like those kind of theoretical discussions and they do not appear to increase anyone's understanding.