The Playground

    Quote from Alan Smith

    You know very well i understand all the issues you raise. You just don't want to admit that missing a X9 error is just a tad laughable

    They didn't miss it. It wasn't an error. They saw that according to Rossi's method the cell was apparently producing 9 times input, but they also knew was an error, because the cell was empty. They pointed this out to Rossi. He got angry.


    They made errors in previous tests which they thought produced real excess heat. However, I have not read that these previous tests produces errors as large as 9 times input. I think the previous errors were smaller. I believe I.H. realized there was a problem so they tested a cell with no powder and pushed the technique to its limits to get 9 times. That does not mean they believed it.


    In the 1-year test, Rossi and Penon produced an error of 50 times input. They made 20 kW look like 1 MW in their own data, mainly by producing hot water and claiming it was dry steam. However, I do not think this was a mistake. Given the absurd numbers in the report and the absurd choice of instruments, I assume this was deliberate fraud.


    Rossi has shown himself to be and ignorant and arrogant simpleton. Abram shoves the evidence in Rossi's face and nevertheless. there is no recognition, let alone acknowledgment.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Dewey,

    [....]

    I am curious; did you guys take steps after seeing the Rossi/FF "tricks" in NC, to make sure they could not do the same thing in Switzerland? TD informed us in his depo that Rossi/FF were there most, if not the whole 32 days, so I would think that after NC, he would have been very suspicious with those two characters being so heavily involved? Yet, in reading the depos's, all of IH appeared to be impressed by the Lugano results...or were they? I would even go so far as to say that were it not for Lugano, TD never would have signed the Term Sheet allowing Doral.

    So many suspicions and so many proofs of Rossi's falsity, yet an unperturbed IH has continued to collect money and finance his tests ..... or IH people have an endless naivety or they do not tell us all things sincerely.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    IH IMHO spent too much time following Rossi's test methods as no doubt signed off also by Levi, Fulvio. They had at the time no-one to check this and tell them different.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    All I'm asking is that on this topic you make your thinking a little less selective, and admit that IH/Vaughn would be unable to debug Rossi's rubbish measurement setups and therefore would get the same results as Rossi until they just happened to do what Rossi said was not worth doing - a proper control experiment.


    @THH: Will we soon see the brand new "alternate facts -Huxley" filter??


    Vaughan unable to debunk Rossi but highly able to measure the exact factor 9 wrong COP...


    Do you ever rethink/Re-evaluate what you wrote??


    The true question is: Why do investment brookers believe that the understand and can do science at all?

    It is said that IH discoverd that a COP of 9 was measured while no fuel was in the reactor.
    Did IH afterwards analyze how they where misled ?
    As an engineer that would be the first thing what I wanted to know in order to have a full understanding of the situation.
    IF IH did not do this, why not ? If they did can somebody tell me how they where misled ?

    LDM - Nice job keeping with the Planet Rossi outward focus mission - never ever never ever ever ever ask any questions about Rossi's explanation for an empty tube that showed a 9X multiple - ever. Now lets ask you some questions - are you concerned about "the secret" getting to the Dupe'salla boys? Turning an empty or stuffed powder tube into a 9X miracle heater is no little feat - you just need right mix of cheap Chinese electronics, the "power supply trick" and some Rossi stagecraft magic. BTW - you're not going to be able to fool the non-Planet Rossians by adding a battery to your circuit this time. We also learned a lot from your "instructions" to Bass. Was he ever able to locate the left-handed smoke sifter - skyhook version?


    Wyttenbach: it is always helpful to think these things through.


    The scenario here is that Rossi/Fulvio provide Vaughn with reactors, a complex test setup, and instructions on how to run the tests. Vaughn is certainly capable of following these instructions, but not of knowing whether (for example) power measurement is correct or wrong.


    All we know is that in this way a COP of 9 was measured. Not, as I've pointed out, surprising.


    We also know that a reactor showing Rossi-type COP (I'm not sure whether it is confirmed this was COP=9) was run in a test with a whole load of other reactors, all showing the same high COP. One of these reactors was however a control, with no fuel. From which TD, without any tech knowledge, could deduce that Rossi's test setup measures an electric heater as having whatever high COP (perhaps 9, but I'm not certain this has been confirmed) was measured.


    Now: in what way is that difficult to understand?


    Regards, THH

    How do we know IH didn't screw up the calibration and measurement?

    Quote from Rionrlty

    How do we know IH didn't screw up the calibration and measurement?


    Clearly they did, in the sense that they used Rossi's setups for some time getting reassuringly high COP from nothing.


    However, again if you reflect on what happens here, the evidence from a control reactor by mistake included in an identical setup with multiple active ones, and generating the same high COP, is not something you can muck up.


    IH themselves were not confident they had done things right, which is why they were cautious (but alas not cautious enough).


    The anti-IH camp here really fails badly when it comes to analysing the experimental data - because it so clearly shows, and has always shown, Rossi's demos to be duds.


    All the rest, motives, money, contracts, can be twisted in a Rossieque way. hard data from experiments less easily so. When you do this - as in Lugano - you usually get found out if you provide a decent write-up, and no-one believes you if you do not.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    LDM - Nice job keeping with the Planet Rossi outward focus mission - never ever never ever ever ever ask any questions about Rossi's explanation for an empty tube that showed a 9X multiple - ever. Now lets ask you some questions - are you concerned about "the secret" getting to the Dupe'salla boys? Turning an empty or stuffed powder tube into a 9X miracle heater is no little feat - you just need right mix of cheap Chinese electronics, the "power supply trick" and some Rossi stagecraft magic. BTW - you're not going to be able to fool the non-Planet Rossians by adding a battery to your circuit this time. We also learned a lot from your "instructions" to Bass. Was he ever able to locate the left-handed smoke sifter - skyhook version?


    First of all Dewey, I am not on a Planet Rossi outward mission. As stated above, I am an engineer and want to base my opinions on data which can be verified.

    That's why i put my questions and I am sorry to say that you are not giving any answers besides referring to some tricks for which you are not providing any details.

    And as far as my "instructions to Bass", I have no idea where you are talking about. Please explain.

    First of all Dewey, I am not on a Planet Rossi outward mission. As stated above, I am an engineer and want to base my opinions on data which can be verified.


    That is reassuring: so I guess you have never had an opinion that Rossi's devices work? Because there sure is no verified data showing that.

    :)

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    First of all Dewey, I am not on a Planet Rossi outward mission. As stated above, I am an engineer and want to base my opinions on data which can be verified.


    That is reassuring: so I guess you have never had an opinion that Rossi's devices work? Because there sure is no verified data showing that.

    :)

    I did a lot of analyses on data available and those analyses shows that Rossi's devices could be working . (that's something else then that they work !)

    However I am certainly aware that measurement can be faulty and that data even can be manipulated.

    That was the intention of my question, to know how the data was manipulated in order to get a COP of 9.

    Quote from LDM

    I did a lot of analyses on data available and those analyses shows that Rossi's devices could be working . (that's something else then that they work !)

    However I am certainly aware that measurement can be faulty and that data even can be manipulated.

    That was the intention of my question, to know how the data was manipulated in order to get a COP of 9.


    So; I've given an answer, with more or less detail, a number of times. You remember that?


    We know the IR output power method Rossi and IH were using, following Lugano, overestimated output power by 3X (or more at higher temperatures).


    There are a number of ways in which input power can be underestimated by the same amount leading to a total X9:

    • Reversed clamp (X3)
    • Record phase not total power (X3)
    • Saturate current clamp on TRIAC spike currents (X?)
    • Measure Triac output with bandwidth-limited true power meter such as PCE-830. The filtering will reduce power by roughly the reduction in spike height due to the high frequency components lost from the anti-alias filtering. (X?)


    I'm not in a position to know which combination of these things gave X9, but both the X? ones can be X3 easily, so to get this is pretty easy!


    The whole point of bad experiments without detailed write-up is that you cannot possibly know which way they are bad, merely that this can be done. We know Rossi does the IR mis-measurement, and Levi was still doing it a long time after Lugano. We know in the past Rossi has mis-measured input power, but which of these different methods he has used we cannot know. My guess: all of them, at different times. Rossi is truly inventive, even looking at just what we do know.


    You don't need to come to a view as to whether this mis-measurment is deliberate on Rossi's part. He has shown (to Mats) a remarkable apparent inability to understand basic electrical measurement theory when mis-measuring his devices - even when this is pointed out by a friendly voice.

    Quote from Ahlfors

    Alan

    Please cancel my nick from blog.


    Again: open your own thread in an appropriate section, perhaps even one in the same off-topic section which hosts the "Playground", so that the discussion can progress (or be made progress upon moderator request if necessary) according to your rules and within those of the forum. The "Playground" is a general free for all zone on LENR-Forum.


    Quote from Alan Smith

    Are you certain that a Triac was used at Lugano? I am pretty sure that the drive system was via inverters, which are designed not to produce spikes.


    From the report:


    http://www.elforsk.se/Global/O…er/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf


    Quote

    The E-Cat's control apparatus consists of a three-phase TRIAC power regulator, driven by a programmable microcontroller; its maximum nominal power consumption is 360 W. The regulator is driven by a potentiometer used to set the operating point (i.e. the current through the resistor coils, normally 40-50 Amps), and by the temperature read by the reactor's thermocouple.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    THHuxleynew


    Are you certain that a Triac was used at Lugano? I am pretty sure that the drive system was via inverters, which are designed not to produce spikes.


    I did not say or suggest a TRIAC controller was used at Lugano. Certainly no clear evidence of input power mis-measurement there in any case, since all the COP claimed could come from output power mis-measurement, with the claimed acceleration in COP exactly predicted by the mis-measurement, which is powerful additional evidence this is right. The spikes there were tested for HF components and OK as far as measuring by PCE-830 goes.


    The actual Lugano waveform was pretty spiky with a crest factor of around 3 - if I remember right. I also vaguely remember the control box actually used was TRIAC driven from the manual, but precisely what element is used to generate that waveform is immaterial. Your link however says it is a TRIAC controller.


    Rossi does usually use TRIAC (or MOSFET?) controllers which can generate low duty-cycle waveforms (= spikes). He used this in the early days to generate COP from average V & A measurement of a non-sinusoid. The suggestions I make above are a bit more complex, he has become more sophisticated and with 3-phase power there are a lot more possibilities.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    So; I've given an answer, with more or less detail, a number of times. You remember that?


    No, i don't.


    I am fairly new on this forum so don't know what you have been stating in the past.

    But I understand that there are a lot of possibilities to introduce possible errors. Some you mention here, other errors which I found myself are not mentioned, but would have had only a minor impact on the outcome of a COP calculation.

    Also at least one of your mentioned error's, the bandwidth-limited true power meter. I disagree with since I did a Fourier analyses of the power pulses to calculate the effect of the limited bandwidth of the PCE 830 and can state that it had no influence.

    But despite all possible errors I still find it strange that IH did not use it's resources to bring those error sources to light and we all therefore must keep guessing what they are.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.