But they should have used at least a good old thermocouple as a reference in their new experiments after this mistake was uncovered.
Before this runs out of control, who says they are not?
The Playground
-
-
Before this runs out of control, who says they are not?
Sorry Alan, I was just refering to THHuxleynew's comment, where he suggests that "the Lugano guys" simply do the same IR-calorimetry error on and on and therefore see positive results.
It would be really stupid by them ("Lugano guys") not to double and tripple check their results.
-
I was surprised when Levi flat-out refused to consider the (obvious) thermography error - deleting from thought the idea of band emissivity and not responding to pretty basic science. I'd not expect the other Lugano guys to be so unable to rethink errors, except that their behavior as reported by Alan is consistent with them agreeing with Levi the original results were broadly correct. It remains a bit of a mystery to me.
I don't think there was an "obvious" error.
In my opinion the text of the report was shortened, leaving out essential details and intermediate steps they did. This caused many misinterpretations of the report.
I invite you to redo the thermal calculations on the data of the report and you will see that everything lines up very nicely, even the broad band emissivities you can calulate back from the report have the right values.
Also if you look at figure 7 of the report, you will also see that they where quite able to set the proper emissivity on the Optris to get the right temperature reading. If they knew how to set up the Optris properly, they would have done that also for the high temperatures and not changed their method totally.
I hope the MFMP Lugano thermal assessement take 2 will hopefully shed more light on the issue. (Andrea S once calculated that the COP value of the MFMP take 1 measurement had a COP much larger then 1. which indicates a possible measurement error during MFMP take 1)
-
It would be really stupid by them ("Lugano guys") not to double and tripple check their results.
This is the problem I see in THHs arguments as well.
A lot of (sophisticated) people need to be quite stupid so it works out.
I don't say it can't be just that I think its very unlikely.
-
In my opinion the text of the report was shortened, leaving out essential details and intermediate steps they did. This caused many misinterpretations of the report.
I suspect this too, because at least 3 different versions of the first report by Levi et al exist.
-
I don't think there was an "obvious" error.
Assuming you are talking about the Lugano report, there were many obvious errors. Such as not calibrating through the full range of power levels and temperatures the test was expected to produce, and not calibrating again after the test. Those are serious mistakes.
There are many other errors, that have been discussed here at length.
-
Display More
I don't think there was an "obvious" error.
In my opinion the text of the report was shortened, leaving out essential details and intermediate steps they did. This caused many misinterpretations of the report.
I invite you to redo the thermal calculations on the data of the report and you will see that everything lines up very nicely, even the broad band emissivities you can calulate back from the report have the right values.
Also if you look at figure 7 of the report, you will also see that they where quite able to set the proper emissivity on the Optris to get the right temperature reading. If they knew how to set up the Optris properly, they would have done that also for the high temperatures and not changed their method totally.
I hope the MFMP Lugano thermal assessement take 2 will hopefully shed more light on the issue. (Andrea S once calculated that the COP value of the MFMP take 1 measurement had a COP much larger then 1. which indicates a possible measurement error during MFMP take 1)
LDM you have a way of twisting conclusions.
I appreciated your checking my numbers on the Ferrara report aka TPR1, but you ended up cherry picking a case favorable for Rossi & co and didn't check further (or chose not to comment further).
Again on the MFMP replica of the Lugano dogbone, what I did is check whether the calorimetry based on temperature measurements used by Levi and co worked. The result was: yes, if the temperature is right the MFMP dummy is computed to have a COP below and within 10% of 1.
Of course if the temperature is instead wildly overestimated by using the wrong emissivity (total emissivity in lieu of IR band emissivity, incidentally quite high for Alumina) the apparent COP (of a dummy!) will skyrocket.
How can this suggest a mistake by MFMP, who cross checked thermocouples and pyrometer readings to set the emissivity, rather than a mistake by Levi, who relied on a theoretical (and theoretically flawed) uncalibrated emissivity setting?
-
Display More
LDM you have a way of twisting conclusions.
I appreciated your checking my numbers on the Ferrara report aka TPR1, but you ended up cherry picking a case favorable for Rossi & co and didn't check further (or chose not to comment further).
Again on the MFMP replica of the Lugano dogbone, what I did is check whether the calorimetry based on temperature measurements used by Levi and co worked. The result was: yes, if the temperature is right the MFMP dummy is computed to have a COP below and within 10% of 1.
Of course if the temperature is instead wildly overestimated by using the wrong emissivity (total emissivity in lieu of IR band emissivity, incidentally quite high for Alumina) the apparent COP (of a dummy!) will skyrocket.
How can this suggest a mistake by MFMP, who cross checked thermocouples and pyrometer readings to set the emissivity, rather than a mistake by Levi, who relied on a theoretical (and theoretically flawed) uncalibrated emissivity setting?
Andrea,
I have no intention to twisting conclusions or cherry pick a case favorable for Rossi.
As yourself I am trying to base my conclusions on calculations rather then opinions.
Reading your report it states :
At 895W input the MFMP dummy reactor or "dogbone", application of the Lugano computation method yields apperent COP=1.66 If measured spectral emissivity (0.95) is used. Even at lower drives to 200W input, COP appears always above 1, which is of course inconsistent with a dummy run.
Maybe I misinterpreted the above sentence, but don't accuse me of trying to cherry pick favorable cases for Rossi.
-
I am sure you are in good faith. But the sentence that follows in my report is :
"Instead, if the Lugano computation method is applied with use of total emissivity data drawn from literature as in the Lugano report,
but relying on thermocouple temperature reading for calibrating the Optris thermal camera (not on total emissivity data, as the camera only senses a portion of the spectrum), results for COP are in the range 0.91 to 0.97, which is in line with expectations (conservative and within 10% error)."
I think it is clear: the method of Lugano is ok except for the emissivity setting on the Optris camera. But maybe I need to edit the report for better clarity, as I must say at least another person misinterpreted my conclusions already.
-
Perhaps a competent moderator should move this pertinent Lugano / Oops'salla discussion out of the playpen and back to where it belongs.
-
Another significant sentence (and hopefully unambiguous) in the conclusions is:
"Use of total emissivity data from literature as suggested by the Lugano report in setting the Optris camera was shown by MFMP to largely
overestimate the temperature. When emissivity of alumina was set to 0.45 i.e. close to the 0.4 figure used in the Lugano report based on
literature data, MFMP obtained a (false) reading of 1524°C versus a 874°C thermocouple reading : with this temperature, apparent COP at
895W input diverges to 4.32 ."
-
Display More
Back here again with Lugano?
Build one, don't fuel it, and do everything else the same (IR camera settings etc.).
Voila! The same COP as Lugano will be result. (But it won't be a real excess heat).
WITH NO FUEL IN IT!!!
For that matter, just build a simple smooth alumina cylinder with no fuel with a much simpler heater set-up (single phase, maybe even DC, for example)
And do the rest same as Lugano with the IR camera.
The darn thing will still make a (not real) COP similar to Lugano!
WITH NO FUEL IN IT!!!
The upcoming MFMP Lugano Thermal Validation Repeat (Or whatever it is called) can't come soon enough as far as I am concerned.
yes, in the field you should always have a control "cell", and if all possible run it in real time with the active "cell" in the same environmental conditions. That's why jumping to1MW was laughable. It did not have a way to put in of 1MW of dummy regulated heat. for control and calibration.
Never trust LENR experiments with out control runs and calibration with control runs at the conditions used for the test.
This post moved from RvD2. Alan.
-
Display More
Another significant sentence (and hopefully unambiguous) in the conclusions is:
"Use of total emissivity data from literature as suggested by the Lugano report in setting the Optris camera was shown by MFMP to largely
overestimate the temperature. When emissivity of alumina was set to 0.45 i.e. close to the 0.4 figure used in the Lugano report based on
literature data, MFMP obtained a (false) reading of 1524°C versus a 874°C thermocouple reading : with this temperature, apparent COP at
895W input diverges to 4.32 ."
Thank's for the additional comments and that you consider that I am commenting in good faith.
I will try to digest your report in some more detail one of these days instead of largely restricting myself to the conclusions.
That said, it seems that there are people on this forum who are getting nervous about emissivity discussions starting again.
-
-
No matter what, he did share confidential IH property / IP by sending ash samples out for analysis without first obtaining IH approval and thus, violated the agreement.
From your rants I reckon this will be his smallest problem.
-
This is the problem I see in THHs arguments as well.
A lot of (sophisticated) people need to be quite stupid so it works out.
I don't say it can't be just that I think its very unlikely.
Are you aware that MFMP's Optris vs Alumina experimental data from a few months back completely validated THH's Lugano emmisivity recalculations?
-
If IH people were certain they could not consider the Doral test to be the GPT because of the lack of a signature, why did they promise Rossi to pay him in any case if he had achieved positive results? (See for example 254-04). It seems that their intention was not to pay him at all, since the promise was only oral, so retractable even at the last moment.
How do you know that there were not (or are not) pre-existing agreements still in force covering the relationship and flow of IP between Lugano testers. IH and Rossi that allow for the exchange of information and material samples for scientific purposes? The answer to that is of course, that you don't. Nor me, btw, but I'm not shouting about it.
An excellent question Alan. IMHO there are far too many iron clad conclusions being espoused here, while only based on speculation, and often only on innuendo. Even with the extensive depositions and court filings there is still much more we don't know here than we do. Reminds me a little too much of the speculation by the liberal main stream media in their efforts to brand Trump a liar, traitor and buffoon based only on liberal bias and speculation.
-
Just to add to Zeus46's comment, one can download the Optris software from a link on the MFMP website, and then search for the Padua Reheat page on the MFMP website, and download Optris video files done with an identically spec'd Optris camera to the Lugano one, and change the emissivities to one hearts content to see what happens.
Things learned from that can be combined with an online radiance-convection calculator for power calculations, and also compared with the USGS-NASA radiance calculator (where one can match equivalent power-temperature-emissivity curves [make them cross just in the short wavelength side of the middle of the curves to get close], power per wavelength increment is done for you and can be downloaded in a spreadsheet) and so these can be used to back check the online radiance-convection calculator results.
Anyways, fiddling with the Optris software and real IR video files of a known object is much more intuitive than fiddling with a bunch of numbers and finicky math.
A couple of months ago I even posted a zip file of the Lugano device layout for the Optris software (the temperature measurement boxes in the shape of the Lugano dogbone, labelled the same as Lugano). Looks like below, Customize the measurement boxes any way you want...
USGS-NASA radiance calculator here : https://astrogeology.usgs.gov/…rmal-radiance-calculator/
Calculator for horizontal cylinder here: http://www.thermal-wizard.com/…linder/horiz-cylinder.htm
-
Are you aware that MFMP's Optris vs Alumina experimental data from a few months back completely validated THH's Lugano emmisivity recalculations?
@Z: Are you aware, that this is only true if it was exactly the same material (and not DuropotXYZ) and the same thickness and the same diameter and ... (no air movement and...)
To sum it up: We only can explain, that wrong emissivity settings lead to completely wrong COP's. But that is known since we have Thermography...
-
Paradigmnoia's 'pointless discussion' is far from pointless. The point is that if Rossi really did have a process which transmuted Ni, Cu or anything else into isotopic Ni62, that would be both very lucrative financially
sigmoidal : Did you ever ask a cow to discuss about a steak?
Your and some other (PGM's) statements about 62Ni only show that you have not the slightest understanding of the physical reality. Yes there is more of 62Ni in NiLiH Rossi ashes than in the fuel.
But the isotopes are still mixed : Only a FUD'er can use such wierd and clueless arguments!
Stop talking about isotope clean 62Ni! It is never a result of NiLiH LENR.
Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric
