Again with all due respect to Focardi, if he was advanced in illness enough to have trouble with commas and periods in simple math in 2011, how far back can you go to a point where his faculties would be likely fully healthy?
Focardi never failed at public math....even on video. Rossi did as shown above...miserably. Are you confusing Rossi with Focardi? Big difference BTW, as you must know.
Display MoreApparentlly not. Who has?
I don't think that Jack said what Axil just claimed. He wrote:
He was not talking about "documented experiments:" There are thousands upon thousands of documented experiments showing anomalous heat. How many are verified? Not nearly so many. There are experiments with results that have been confirmed. The me356 work apparently has not been confirmed, and that was all he was talking about.
It is a huge amount of work to actually do experiments. It's a lot more work than sitting at a computer spewing opinions. Jack is one who has actually done some experimental work. He's paid his dues. Axil is who? And, especially, who is Axil to tell Jack Cole what he should and should not do? While fibbing about what Jack actually said?
Axil is demonstrating here that he does not understand what is in front of him. Yet he has very strong opinions about things that he did not witness and does not document.
There is a way to recover, Axil. It's to apologize. Do anonymous internet trolls ever apologize? I'm trying to remember. Help me out here.
If we are inclined to do experimental work, we pick where to put that investment. We will often go for the latest, most exciting thing, which often fails to pan out. Or we could decide just to do some basic work, confirming something where the world might benefit from confirmation or disconfirmation. Or we might spend the time on something else. I never blame the skeptics for not doing experimental work. I do blame them for insulting those who do, but that's different.
If it were up to you, LENR replicators would still be boiling tons of water in electrolysis experiments, sniffing round for helium and getting nowhere. Your production of disjointed ideas and malarky has done more harm to LENR than any troll has, including Cude.
Lomax, Cole, Renzzzz, that's a lot of vitriol even from you designated trolls, was today a special day?
Lomax, Cole, Renzzzz, that's a lot of vitriol even from you designated trolls, was today a special day?
Where do you see any vitriol from me? I have posted factual information along with some opinion, but I do not recall any vitriol.
Focardi
Focardi never failed at public math....even on video. Rossi did as shown above...miserably. Are you confusing Rossi with Focardi? Big difference BTW, as you must know.
DEFINITELY a big difference...I understand why Focardi was having the difficulty understanding the comma and period....as for Rossi's problems with math...only time shall tell....or an ERV report possibly.
The heating element will burn out if we run full power through it. Really? They actually believed that? It won't burn out with full power in a cell with a lot of extra heat supposedly being generated, where the elements would get even hotter, but it will burn out without that extra power? Sure, you don't just flip a switch to full current, the inrush can burn it out. You ramp it up, slowly, to prevent shock, allowing it to heat. But avoiding doing a full-input-power control? What were they thinking? The song goes "they must have been drinking!"
IMO, one would have serious difficulty in supplying enough current to heat that coil in a period of time that could be called heating it up quickly.
What would blow would be most likely a fuse or a controller SCR, long before the Lugano coil would suffer inrush damage.
Adb-
Calling Axil a troll bothers me enough to say something. It’s plain wrong. Then asking
people (anyone) to apologize that does not see your point of view is weak.
You have some important points you bring up after reading your perspective --- but just bring up the point. We don’t need to belabor the other user if you either don’t agree,
disagree or just plain out do not see their point.
ME356 can speak for himself, when/if he comes back.
Also Thank you JackCole. You have been there. You are just providing first hand facts on what you have seen.
I see my name mentioned several times in this thread and figured I better chime in.
First, I have a huge amount of respect for Jack Cole and highly value his opinion. He has fought the good fight. More than most people can say on this forum.
I am one week into my replication of me356's experiment that he claims has a 1.5 COP. I will start a thread about the experiment with pictures etc. at some point. I based my replication off of Bob Greenyer's documentation of me356's experiment. me356 has provided me a very small amount of guidance regarding the experiment and I have requested more guidance as he has left many details of stimulation etc. undocumented. Hopefully he will provide further guidance. After one week of cycling temperatures and pressures the COP remains unchanged at 1.
as for me he just tries to enforce the payment and that' all. there's no thing to think about
Sure, you don't just flip a switch to full current, the inrush can burn it out.
A requote from Abd, of course. But never mind.
Since the resistance of Kanthal Wire is not temperature dependent, there is no 'inrush current' - also the inductance/capacitance is very low so not much back EMF. The current when cold and the current when hot are pretty much the same. Inrush current is a problem in other situations, but not this one.
Paradigmnoia wrote:
A requote from Abd, of course. But never mind.
Since the resistance of Kanthal Wire is not temperature dependent, there is no 'inrush current' - also the inductance/capacitance is very low so not much back EMF. The current when cold and the current when hot are pretty much the same. Inrush current is a problem in other situations, but not this one.
This is something most anyone familiar with, say, electric light bulbs or filament heaters in vacuum tubes might think of. Whether or not this would blow a fuse or not would depend on details.
My comment was not based on Kanthal wire, it was a general one, true for many metals. I was attempting to make some sense out of the restriction in the Lugano test. I have no reason to doubt Alan's information, here.
This is one among a number of problems with the Lugano report. They make the claim of possible damage in the report, as the reason for not testing the device with full input power, as later actually used. They have never responded to questions about that report, except for a bit of fluff from Levy on Lewan's blog, a bald and unsupported statement about emissivity, completely ignoring the obvious, what did the thing look like when it was supposedly 1400 C?
Levy held the outlet pipe in the Krivit video. He could see the flow of steam. It doesn't really look like steam, it looks more like a bit of water vapor. The claimed power, if actually evaporating all the water, would have produced a far more powerful flow. This was all raised in 2011. Has Levy ever responded to this?
There are "scientists" like this, who trust their abstractions more than their senses. It's obvious that Levy was not objective, long before Lugano.
We have wondered why the Lugano team has not commented, acknowledging error or defending their claims. Long ago, I suggested they might be under an NDA not to independently comment. That would, by the way, destroy the objectivity of the test, by placing restrictions on the examiners. Otherwise it is very difficult to understand the stonewalling.
The stonewalling discredits the Lugano report more than the alleged errors!
It's the cover-up, stupid!
QuoteWe have wondered why the Lugano team has not commented, acknowledging error or defending their claims. Long ago, I suggested they might be under an NDA not to independently comment. That would, by the way, destroy the objectivity of the test, by placing restrictions on the examiners. Otherwise it is very difficult to understand the stonewalling.
They may be under NDA but that would not stop them from commenting that they can't reply because of an NDA. It would not stop their responding to remarks about published data if they routed it through Rossi for approval first. If the reply addressed only published data, why would Rossi refuse? And if he did, they could simply say they tried and Rossi was responsible for their silence.
Those are things any legitimate researcher would do. The probable reason they don't comment is because the Swedish scientists are embarrassed by the glaring errors and deficiencies in their work. And they have no credible responses to the critiques. As for Levi, he never responds to anything and hasn't since 2011. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Comments alleging possible fraud by third parties removed. Alan.
Those coils are so huge, the alumina could be pounded off with a hammer, the coils bent back into a semblance of their before-hammer shape, and the coils would probably be fine to run at the maximum current used for the Lugano demonstration.
They may be under NDA but that would not stop them from commenting that they can't reply because of an NDA. It would not stop their responding to remarks about published data if they routed it through Rossi for approval first. If the reply addressed only published data, why would Rossi refuse? And if he did, they could simply say they tried and Rossi was responsible for their silence.
Sigh. NDAs often contain a clause prohibiting disclosure of the existence of the NDA.
Why would Rossi refuse? Are you kidding?
The NDA may not necessarily be with Rossi. It might be, for example, an agreement between the Lugano researchers, that they will not comment individually, without consulting the others.
That there is an NDA is just a speculation, that might explain the stonewalling.
Some on Planet Rossi claim that they don't respond because they think they are right, and anyone criticizing them is an idiot, or something like that. Sorry, but Planet Rossi will believe almost anything that allows them to preserve cherished concepts. Like "Lugano was an independent test, what do they mean there has never been an independent test? It PROVED that Rossi's technology works, esteemed professors at esteemed institutions, etc., etc."
I have yet to see any of the Rossifans attempt to understand and answer the basic objections to Lugano.
QuoteWe have wondered why the Lugano team has not commented, acknowledging error or defending their claims. Long ago, I suggested they might be under an NDA not to independently comment. That would, by the way, destroy the objectivity of the test, by placing restrictions on the examiners. Otherwise it is very difficult to understand the stonewalling.
It is a mystery, and NDA is one possibility. Also important to realise that the team are different individuals. Levi has always delivered positive results for Rossi tests and is closely involved - no way objective. The others? NDA? Or they left the IR part, and reply to comments on it, to Levi, reckoning this was his area of competence?
Levi has always delivered positive results for Rossi tests and is closely involved - no way objective.
I refer you to my earlier comment on this matter. The short version is :- Levi is not involved with Rossi any more. He only got involved in the first place because Focardi got too sick and asked him to carry on helping Rossi. MY's suggestion that Levi/Rossi bullied Focardi is total nonsense - Levi certainly couldn't bully a tadpole- he is a very timid guy. Perhaps that is his problem. Anyway, UniBo has requested no more comments from all concerned.
ETA. It is the Upsalla guys who continue their involvement. They were there too.
QuoteLevi is not involved with Rossi any more.
I'm glad about that. And while money for pinball machine projects may be good, it is not worth the hassle for him I'm sure.
That leaves the state of Levi's bias wrt Rossi's devices uncertain. He could have switched from being a fan to an anti-fan - or he could still believe the technology regardless of how Rossi's machinations pan out. Either way, he is not independent.
I'm not inclined to give him much slack for the following reason. He was asked by Mats to check the Lugano IR issue, with reference the TC paper, and replied to Mats in a way that showed he seriously did not understand the key point (two emissivities not one) - he said "even if you set emissivity to 1 COP = 2". Which is true but meaningless since there are two emissivity values which enter the equation and they are very different (one is approx 1, the other is approx 0.5). If you set both the emissivities to 1 you do indeed get COP~2, whereas the correct value for the "power" emissivity, 0.5ish, gives COP ~ 1.
Ok: that can be just arrogance, incompetence and not bothering to read something you don't rate. But he also said he had discussed the matter with colleagues and they agreed. That might have happened, but it would be colleagues equally unaware as Levi of the finer details (emissivity is frequency-dependent). Also, he could not have consulted showing his colleagues the TC paper because they would have been convinced by it had they understood it, and not validated Levi's view had they not. I'm sure Levi had earlier times when he should have questioned his assumptions - but this is one that is cast iron where he clearly was lacking the critical ability needed in a scientist. I'm not saying Levi lacks this generally, but it is evidenced on this issue so he cannot be viewed as credible support for Rossi.
So: this is positive evidence, from March or so this year, that Levi's technical judgement in matters Rossi is suspect. Whether because he is biased and not judging clearly, or lacking the ability to understand straightforward technical information that is clearly presented, is not to the point. Either disqualifies him.
Get your head around this THH. Levi has had enough being twitted on the forums and will not respond to allegations of bias or indeed respond at all, which is in accordance with the wishes of his department at UniBo. That's it, enough already.
QuoteGet your head around this THH. Levi has had enough being twitted on the forums and will not respond to allegations of bias or indeed respond at all, which is in accordance with the wishes of his department at UniBo. That's it, enough already.
I'm not expecting or wanting any comment from Levi. Were I him I would keep my head down as low as possible and hope the flak does not hit. I was responding to what I thought was the suggestion that his previous work with Rossi should be considered competent and independent. There is recent evidence to the contrary. It is relevant because much of the technical support for earlier Rossi tests comes from Levi.
Sorry if I've misunderstood - but Levi is still sometimes quoted as adding validation of a sort...
FWIW - I can easily believe Levi a nice and unassuming person in completely over his head and very harshly treated from his involvement with Rossi. Were I MY I would no doubt say something scathing - but in truth we can all be fools.
I'm not expecting or wanting any comment from Levi. Were I him I would keep my head down as low as possible and hope the flak does not hit. I was responding to what I thought was the suggestion that his previous work with Rossi should be considered competent and independent. There is recent evidence to the contrary. It is relevant because much of the technical support for earlier Rossi tests comes from Levi.
Sorry if I've misunderstood - but Levi is still sometimes quoted as adding validation of a sort...
FWIW - I can easily believe Levi a nice and unassuming person in completely over his head and very harshly treated from his involvement with Rossi. Were I MY I would no doubt say something scathing - but in truth we can all be fools.
And no doubt Levi put a lot of hard work into the various tests. That said, it is sad that it appears he was taken advantage of along with so many others.
