The Playground

  • There where two PCE-830 meters used. The other one was situated on the supply side of the equipment.

    If the one at the controller was hooked up wrong or manupulated, then there would have been a large difference between the readings of the two meters.

    Such a difference should have been noted.

    Not if both power meters were the same way manipulated / wrongly hooked up.

  • There where two PCE-830 meters used. The other one was situated on the supply side of the equipment.

    If the one at the controller was hooked up wrong or manupulated, then there would have been a large difference between the readings of the two meters.

    Such a difference should have been noted.


    Which test are we talking about? Not all Rossi's tests had input power mis-measurement. Lugano, due I think to lessons learnt, had pretty good input power measurement and the error there was something else entirely. You need to be very specific with these statements.

  • There where two PCE-830 meters used. The other one was situated on the supply side of the equipment.

    If the one at the controller was hooked up wrong or manupulated, then there would have been a large difference between the readings of the two meters.

    Such a difference should have been noted.


    Which test are we talking about? Not all Rossi's tests had input power mis-measurement. Lugano, due I think to lessons learnt, had pretty good input power measurement and the error there was something else entirely. You need to be very specific with these statements.


    We are talking about the test shown in the picture supplied by Forty-Two in his post (Lugano). You can see both meters in the picture.


    Concerning the remark of Forty-Two, yes both can be hooked up wrong. That both are manipulated i find less likely because that must be done at the supply side. That side can be much better inspected by the testers then the internals of the controller.

  • We are talking about the test shown in the picture supplied by Forty-Two in his post (Lugano). You can see both meters in the picture.


    Concerning the remark of Forty-Two, yes both can be hooked up wrong. That both are manipulated i find less likely because that must be done at the supply side. That side can be much better inspected by the testers then the internals of the controller.


    Since with Lugano the output power mis-measurment neatly and exactly explains the COP (even the spectacular COP acceleration) no input mis-measurement is needed or likely. And it is true that two meters on different waveforms reduces chances for such errors. Rossi had to be creative with the Lugano test,

  • Concerning the remark of Forty-Two, yes both can be hooked up wrong. That both are manipulated i find less likely because that must be done at the supply side. That side can be much better inspected by the testers then the internals of the controller.

    I guess you didn't fully understand what I mean.

    See this (rather poor) schematic drawing from the lugano report:


    There are two PCE 830 power meters. One just upstream the control box, and one just downstream the control box.

    The PCE 830 upstream the PCE 830 needs to sense the voltages of the 3 phase feeder coming to the control box.

    The PCE 830 downstream needs to sense the voltages of the 3 phase supply lines leaving the control box (to the hot-cat).


    So, in case Rossi provided the adapters for the connection of all the voltage probes (on the cables to AND from the control box; just before and after the box), which for the tester looked like that this adapters senses the voltage on the line where they are fixed, but when they actually sense e.g. a 60° phase shifted voltage, then the active power measured by both PCE 830 is off by the same ratio.


    Just one way to cheat (out of many ways) - in case you would like to cheat.;)

  • Why should I ask them to deliver measurement reports etc? They have, they say, been trying to get Rossi's stuff to work for more than a year with every motivation (those $billion notes Cassarini took from a meeting of plans, if all panned out) to get it to work and no success beyond some initial illusory positives based on what was obviously Rossi-inspired measurement setups.


    @THH: It is completely un-scientific to compare a dilettantes write-up included in court-doc and a scientific report like "Lugano".

    Any reasoning/comparing of "IH-told stories " with other experiments is below any allowed level. You/we! simply have not the slightest proof, that IH ever did something reasonable, including correctly documenting their work.



    I do wish that, even on this thread, when trying to comment on my posts, you would do so using correct argument.


    As said above: Your arguments are based on an unqualified (IH) writeup - on unproven/guessed "facts". You should not complain, because you are the source of unqualified reasoning.


    We all know that AR makes mistakes, but we also know that they not lead to a COP of 1. May be you should first find ground for reasonable arguments, before supporting IH's COP 1 claims.


    BDW: Such arguments (COP 1) made by IH will cause, that they will go down in the jury trial, as it will be very easy to prove that they are wrong...

  • Well, this is the thread for troll-like comments so i guess I cannot complain at W's response above.


    Wyttenbach you are repeating things and ignoring my point (about the double-blind control)


    You are also making unprovable and IMHO very silly assumptions.

  • Well, this is the thread for troll-like comments so i guess I cannot complain at W's response above.


    @Stop this silly (gossip) argumentation: Just deliver us an "IH expert" report we can discuss about! Otherwise you are just documenting your working culture!


    Did somebody at IH write down/take pictures of wrong clamp position --> please show us!

  • So: as you have agreed, all you would need is to use the given instrumentation correctly (proper RMS measuements on all phases without clamps reversed, correct value of band emissivity).


    But given Rossi and presumably Fulvio and (certainly for the IR stuff) Levi were not doing this, how is Vaughn - a non-tech guy - supposed to know any different? Or Dameron, a barely tech guy?


    IH relied on Rossi, Fulvio, and the endorsement of Levi + the Swedes. They were not initially set up to detect plain wrong use of equipment.

    But should not the due diligence be made before collecting funds from investors? If IH did not have the right staff, they should have assumed it from the beginning for fairness against the financiers.

  • Come on Eric be real. You're totally anti-Rossi, which by default makes you pro IH.

  • Come on Eric be real. You're totally anti-Rossi, which by default makes you pro IH.


    I suspect you believe that anyone that is not for Rossi is totally anti-Rossi. I still allow for the possibility (pretty much academic at this point) that Rossi could redeem himself. I'm not holding out hope for this to happen. Whether that eventually happens, I do feel that his behavior has been abhorrent and not the kind of thing to be encouraged in others who might seek to copy him. But this is separate from the question of whether he has or has ever had something. But since the only thing we have to go on with respect to the latter question is what has actually happened up to this point that we know about, the outlook is murky and highly doubtful.


    Watching Rossi's misadventures for six years will put some doubt in one's heart about his intentions.


    One need not be "anti-Rossi" and by default pro-IH, although I am very happy that IH have come along. Why so? Because I've seen that LENR researchers are generally happy that IH have come along, and because I gather from what information that I have that Tom Darden is a pretty decent fellow who has the capacity and willingness to do the footwork needed to infuse capital into this field, which I view as a worthy investment. So I am "pro-IH," if we're going to use simple categories.

  • Isn't it also amazing how the socks go quiet when there is a hearing - is somebody busy or something?

    Dewey is quite amazing how you can go on insulting.

    My feeling is that in your deep you know that IH will lose the trial and you want only to make a "bold" voice.

    Well, I'm not impressed.


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

  • Dewey is quite amazing how you can go on insulting.

    My feeling is that in your deep you know that IH will lose the trial and you want only to make a "bold" voice.

    Well, I'm not impressed.

    Rossele,

    What is truly amazing is your ability to get inside the mind of AR. I can hardly tell the difference. You are able to think like him with impressive skill. Have you ever considered running an energy scam? I bet you could be quite successful.


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

  • One need not be "anti-Rossi" and by default pro-IH, although I am very happy that IH have come along. Why so? Because I've seen that LENR researchers are generally happy that IH have come along, and because I gather from what information that I have that Tom Darden is a pretty decent fellow who has the capacity and willingness to do the footwork needed to infuse capital into this field, which I view as a worthy investment. So I am "pro-IH," if we're going to use simple categories.

    Eric,

    Regarding LENR researchers that's probably true. On the other hand, I would be interested to know what kind of information you have that "Tom Darden is a pretty decent fellow". To be honest, I don't have any direct information, but I have to ask, does this "information" include the fact that IH created multiple shell companies (including in Europe which is Rossi's territory) and filed for patents behind Rossi's back? Does it include Cherokee's history of being sued by local townships for not keeping up their end of the bargain? If Tom is a sincere, decent investor who has been scammed by Rossi I feel sorry for him. (On the other hand, I wonder about his "due diligence". I also wonder about the money he apparently raised ("Stellar! Stellar!" he apparently told the Woodford investors when they were visiting Doral, according to Rossi) based on claims that Rossi's technology was working.) A few other "pro-Rossi" comments to put things in context. It is my understanding that Rossi sold one of his businesses and put a million dollars of his own money into the E-cat technology long before obtaining a manufacturing agreement with IH. Am I wrong on this? While Rossi may well be deluded, does this sound like the behavior of a scammer? To be even more of a Devil's advocate, I know that this is far-fetched, but is it not conceivable that one or more of the following may be true:

    (i) IH DID acquire a significant amount of IP (but perhaps not all of the IP) from Rossi but didn't want to pay the $89M

    (ii) IH for now is not interested in manufacturing until they can divest themselves from fossil-fuels and other investments

    (iii) IH may be using small investments in LENR researchers as a cover for "developing" IP they already had from Rossi so they don't have to pay?


    Edit: I've just re-read Tom Darden's speech at ICCF19 which seems to me to be sincere and somewhat moving, and clearly indicates a history (and desire) of fostering (primarily as a lawyer and investor) anti-pollution and pollution-cleanup technology. I was also impressed by his mention that he had built an experimental airplane (is this true?) On the other hand there are some apparent dichotomies in his speech which confuse me. One is his claim to be creating an environment at IH that fosters "open sharing" between scientists, which seems at odds with what I've seen and with IH's business practices. The other is IH's general secretiveness (coupled with the shell-company issues I mentioned above).


    2nd Edit: for those who are interested, here is the link to the text of his speech at ICCF19: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…speech-on-lenr-at-iccf19/

  • quizzical , yes — my main sources of information on Tom Darden are the ICCF talk you cite as well as this Infinite Energy article by Marianne Macy. (There are also lots of transcripts and emails in the lawsuit docket, but I have not read through these beyond that progress report that went out to investors.) It is hard to pass judgment on the Cherokee lawsuits without further information; I know that in some lines of business lawsuits are common. I'd want the opinion of one or two people in the real-estate development business to get a sense of whether accusations of shady behavior have any merit. It is also possible that Darden and IH are playing hardball with Rossi and want to cheat him somehow. This is not the impression I come away with, but I could be mistaken. I do not dismiss the possibility out of hand.


    About Rossi, it's impossible to peer into his soul and know what he's thinking. I almost don't think it matters. It was in watching the developments relating to the E-Cat that I started to want to move beyond character assessments, which are difficult, and just look at outward behavior and whether there are hard data available to assess claims that people make.

  • Rossele - I'm not trying to impress you, we're taking you out of the game. Your father must have been a glassmaker because it is way too easy to see right through you along with your nasty little socks. And what's with putting Rossahi on deep freeze? I wasn't finished having fun with him yet.


    40 years of criminal enterprise is a bad life's work and you should have quit while you were "ahead", so to speak.

  • Hi P,


    I don't think this is true, because the I and V measurements on the three phases will measure power transferred correctly irrespective of Wye or Delta. You do get a difference if you just use V and I measurements without phase, or if you calculate power from just I, but the PCE-830 will use all info correctly.


    Maybe for some tests Rossi was using V & I measurements on 3 phase without a PCE-830. That would be another error mode I'd not considered...

    I stated that poorly and wrongly in my haste to get out the door. That comment of mine was not well thought out. It has been a while since I thought about the electrical characteristics of the Lugano demonstration.

    I mixed up the 1/3.3 resistance thingy with the power measurements, so you are correct. The PCE should measure the power correctly in both delta and wye as long as clamps facing the correct way.


    I will have go dig around in my old files to find the delta wye comparisons to make a more accurate statement regarding constant resistance and switching from wye to delta at either constant current or voltage. The handy web calculator with a nice diagram that I liked to use for helping to explain this (and was easy to change values around in) is longer available.

  • OK, lets try this out:

    At the same "input" current, same heater wire resistance, a delta makes 1/3 the power of a wye, and the voltage will be higher across any two "input" leads in the wye than a delta using the same amount of current. This is because a delta winding has lower current in the resistance portion of the circuit than a wye with the same resistance in all three phases. And Joule heat is proportional to current.


    So going from a delta to a wye (not the other way around) might be a better way to get an apparent 3X heat gain using a simple current-only comparison trick... (The PCE will not be fooled by this.)


    I consider and treat two important parts of the Lugano Report quite differently: a) Measured Values and b) Calculated Values. Measured values I take at face value, otherwise one might as well forget trying to deal with any analyses at all regarding what is written in the report. Measured values could have minor (IE: transcription) mistakes, but I assume that these are really what was seen and/or recorded on measurement equipment for the most part. Calculated values can have all sorts of errors, like use of wrong formulas, etc., but can be reversed, when the calculations are made explicit, to derive the original Measured Values if enough other complimentary Measured Values are in agreement.


    I hypothesize that the Lugano device was set up as a wye for the dummy, and a delta for the Active Run(s), and this is consistent with the current and power reported in the report. This does not explain "excess heat" (fake or real), but explains the otherwise ~1/3 apparent resistance drop in the Active Run when assuming a delta configuration for both Dummy and Active Runs for the power levels reported. (The delta circuit is effectively a series connection for purposes of calculating the internal delta resistances).


    In addition to the apparent 1/3 resistance drop of a delta compared to wye at a common current, the C2 cables (in the Lugano arrangement) dissipate 2/3 of the power in a delta compared to a wye version, resulting in a 1/3.3 difference when the Active Run is compared to the Dummy run, using the Wye to Delta hypothesis. This differentiates this hypothesis from a reversed clamp hypothesis, as well as dove-tailing perfectly with the IR camera emissivity problem.


    (Some alternate hypotheses explain the excess heat by holding the effective heater resistance in the Active Runs equal to the Dummy version calculated value, a delta configuration for both Dummy and Active Runs, and therefore 3X more power generated than reported, but this conflicts with the emissivity error in that then 1/3 of the IR-calculated heat power is developed compared to electrical power consumed, after the IR-emissivity power corrections are made, as well as reported power consumption values (Measured Values) which are not arbitrary, but nearly exactly accounted for [quasi-confirmed] using alternate methods.)