@Shane D. ,
I was just commenting generally.
(Sometimes the world needs a nudge towards "common sense" if that is what is is, rather than what it is supposed to be). I am no Atlas...
Funny, though. I just made some "messenger" comments on the Other site.
I will have another, then I'll have to log out before I start digging a hole I shouldn't...
Mary
There could not be a colonel in a NATO army who left no internet footprint whatever and yet showed up in public at a Rossi demo and signed his name to the dirty piece of notebook paper Rossi called The Results of the Test. It does not make sense and it did not make sense in November 2011.
You may be right, but you may also be wrong and speculating in the way you do which is your 'hallmark' may well be 'offensive' to someone. So my opinion is that what you say must be supported by evidence or you should withdraw such speculation.
Jed: When Sniffex sued james Randi for defamation in a Superior Court in Texas, the judge ordered exactly the sort of thing you think they don't. The judge ordered demonstrations in front of experts to show that the Sniffex explosive detector worked. Sniffex immediately dropped the suit. I am quite confident that if this same sort of thing happens to Rossi, he also will drop the suit rather than to try demonstrating the ecat or the megawatt plant.
The above quote is an example of what you are good at, a brilliant find. So why discredit stuff like this with unfounded and libellous accusations?
Best regards
Frank
The entire case is: if the ERV report stands as specified in the contract, IH owes Rossi $89 mil.
transfer of IP is also a condition, this is in fact the most important.
If I can replicate Rossi's technology, I'm sure I can find people around to invest 100Mn$ for a licence (they will maybe refuse to pay me, but they will pay Rossi).
Why don't you (Whyttenbach) do the averaged heat W/cm^2 for the reactor Main Body, Caps, and Rods for the dummy and Run 5, and then we can chat about something possibly meaningful? I am interested in the Correct Answer, not whether you, Rossi, or I wins some argument points or proves someone wrong about some point. How about you?
@P I did the calculations (heat conduction Ecat-Caps-Rods) and answered a post of TC (shortly before he left..). But there is no way to get "the answer".
If we believe that the measurements (wattage of current) was correct, then there is only one conclusion left: The Lugano report is correct!
But there are too many open points, that we can't assume everything is kosher. But assumptions like Lugano COP=1 can only be made by mind screwed scammers.., without any basic knowledge of physics.., just assuming all the involveds are criminals!
But assumptions like Lugano COP=1 can only be made by mind screwed scammers.., without any basic knowledge of physics..,
I have some knowledge of physics. I think the Lugano COP=1 because the reactor was incandescent with an orange red color, instead of being white. If it was ~1200 deg C it would be white. The orange color might be an artifact of the camera, but I doubt it. If it was orange, the temperature was much lower than they thought, and it was about where it should be from the input power.
I asked them what color it was, but they never responded.
The orange color might be an artifact of the camera
Or the picture having been taken at a time other than the time of maximum heat, as there is no clear statement as to when the picture was taken. The color temperature of any of those photos in the Lugano report is nothing to base more than a very rudimentary conclusion on (i.e., that there was some heat at some point).
Or the picture having been taken at a time other than the time of maximum heat, as there is no clear statement as to when the picture was taken.
Maybe. But I and others asked about the color several times, and they never responded. That's not good. Also, Mizuno and others who have experience working with glass in furnaces at ~1200 deg C told me that it is not just white, it is so bright it is dangerous to look at without a welder's mask. I think they would have noted that.
In my experiments, at about 675 C is where the incandescent glow becomes noticeable.
By fiddling with camera settings, I could take a clear photo of the test reactor at 1000 C without much difficulty. And it could be orange to pinkish in the picture. But the background outside of the immediate glow of the "reactor" would be contrasted into near blackness.
@Wyttenbach,
The notion of COP =1 is not the notion of mind-screwed scammers. It is the normal situation for as long as the sciences of electricity and calorimetry have existed.
A true > 1 COP device should fail tests for COP = 1 handily.
I have some knowledge of physics. I think the Lugano COP=1 because the reactor was incandescent with an orange red color, instead of being white.
Thinking is not enough: I just know that following the rods temperature the COP must be much greater than one. You could only say, that all measurements were wrong and shake MY's hand...
A true > 1 COP device should fail tests for COP = 1 handily.
The post wasn't about You. I think your work is serious. But You shouldn't follow the pack, which is well organized by a spin-tank (abd) and only has one target: To safe investors money...
As an Italian I would be very angry, if my technology would be taken over by a very friendly "US state".., just to prevent others to use it.
Maybe. But I and others asked about the color several times, and they never responded. That's not good. Also, Mizuno and others who have experience working with glass in furnaces at ~1200 deg C told me that it is not just white, it is so bright it is dangerous to look at without a welder's mask. I think they would have noted that.
Having done numerous experiments of this type and seen many others (MFMP, Brian Albiston, Alan Smith, and so forth), the temperature of the Lugano reactor is nowhere near the purported operating temperatures (e.g., 1400C+). It is utterly preposterous that the professors have not responded. It does not hold water in the slightest that they have consulted with experts who agree with their findings. Based on the materials used, it is not possible to achieve those kinds of temperatures over the time frame they assert. The only picture shown (presuming it is at full temperature) supports the notion that the temperature was grievously over-estimated.
A glow stick running at 1200C is quite bright and near white as Jed notes. You can't operate these materials at much over 1200 for any great length of time. You might be able to do 1250 for a few days if you have a really good control system. The only evidence we have from Dewey Weaver suggests nothing exotic was used for a heating element, so what is known from other experiments is applicable.
Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax: “Divining rods work with users with certain skills. and in certain contexts, they are entirely user-dependent. They are not magic, but sometimes humans know more than is known consciously.”
Yes. People who are good at…
I've built 4 houses in the past 40 years and all of them were on well water. One each in Maryland, Florida, Alabama, and recently in West Texas. All had good water, including the one on Kent Island in the Chesapeake Bay. The one in Florida was only 10 meters deep. In every case, the driller asked me where I wanted the well. "How about over there?" "OK" was the invariable answer. The only legal code requirement was that they be at least 30 meters from any septic system or drain field. At least in my experience, a person with divining rod would have 100% reliability; no special skills or sensitivity needed.
presuming it is at full temperature
I sympathize with the general direction of your sentiments, here. But I point out that we must make this assumption in order to obtain information from the color temperature of the photos. There are many other pieces of evidence which don't require such an important assumption, upon which more solid conclusions can be based. And the report has been so thoroughly questioned, and the questions have not been addressed by the authors, that I would say that it is inclusive in the best case, and quite possibly a dud.
At least in my experience, a person with divining rod would have 100% reliability; no special skills or sensitivity needed.
You are lucky. I know people in Adams County, Pennsylvania who had to drill three times to find water. It cost a fortune. The water table is unpredictable there. Someone told me it has to do with meteor strike ages ago, that made a huge flat area south of Penmar, PA.
There are people who have a gift for finding water, or minerals, or other natural resources. There are people who are very good at hunting. No doubt they read the land for clues such as tall grass or a scent. That is how other animals survive in arid places, and how primitive people in Africa and Australia survived well into the 20th century. It is a survival skill. Some people are particularly good at it. Some of those people like to use a stick as an aid. People in other professions also use sticks. An orchestra conductor can use her hands, but she may prefer a baton. A professor giving a lecture often uses a pointer not just to point, but also as a memory aid, and to wave around while making points about the subject (which are called "points" because you rhetorically point to them). People of all ages tend to point their fingers instinctively at something which grabs their attention. Even babies a few months old do this.
I think the Lugano COP=1 because the reactor was incandescent with an orange red color, instead of being white.
Thinking is not enough: I just know that following the rods temperature the COP must be much greater than one. You could only say, that all measurements were wrong and shake MY's hand...
Actually, I am pointing out a fact about incandescence that has been common knowledge for thousands of years. All materials glow at the same color at a given temperature. Ancient sword makers and potters measured temperature by looking at the color. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…e_range_550_-_1300_C).svg
So, what you "just know" is probably wrong.
All materials glow at the same color at a given temperature.
Last time I tried putting a tiny amount of table salt into a gas flame there was a dramatic change in colour due to the sodium. Oops.
Wyttenbach wrote:
I read a lot of writing by scientists and some of them are not careful. So an error doesn't prove that someone doesn't have basic knowledge of physics. The matter may be shown by how they respond when questioned. And this is all complicated by some of them getting older and being defensive and, well, crabby. However, here, anyone with a basic knowledge of physics will expect COP = 1 unless there is one of two effects: energy release, which will make COP greater than 1, and this includes chemical release, as an example, or energy storage, which can make COP less than 1. Mostly, in the field, COP is not used, what is of interest is anomalous energy. Scientifically, the issue will be measurement precision, and we do see some analysis of results as "significant" when there is 5% "excess energy," i.e., COP 1.05 or higher.
An "assumption" of COP =1 can be a standard null hypothesis, which an analyst will then attempt to disprove. What can be said of the analyses I have seen, as with Lugano, is that COP =1 cannot be ruled out, not that it has been proven. The rumor is that IH also tested those devices (and they made them, as the Lugano report shows), and found no evidence for anomalous heat. That is often presented as "no heat," but that would probably be sloppy expression. What could possibly be stated would be that anomalous heat, if it existed, was below some level. Genuine scientific reports will show error bars, typically showing one standard deviation above and below. The error *could be* greater than that, but probably isn't.
Now, Jed:
QuoteI have some knowledge of physics. I think the Lugano COP=1 because the reactor was incandescent with an orange red color, instead of being white. If it was ~1200 deg C it would be white. The orange color might be an artifact of the camera, but I doubt it. If it was orange, the temperature was much lower than they thought, and it was about where it should be from the input power.
Jed was actually the first person I noticed pointing this out. The little boy says the emperor has no clothes. Once this was realized, the entire Lugano report was seen as incautious nonsense, with reliance on complex calculations, ignoring the basic evidence of the senses.
Rossi, from what I know of him, absolutely loves this, he's got a thing about stuffed shirt experts, and routinely makes fools out of them. And, of course, he rewards them with continued access to the Invention Of The Century. So he provides a "fuel sample" to Bo Hoistad, who then gets to analyze it. Special, privileged access can be a powerful motivator. Scientifically meaningless, no controls, and impossible to verify, and it looks like Rossi stole (ah, "took") the fuel from the 1 MW reactor. Why did he refuel on the last day of the test? Ah, Planet Rossi hates these inconvenient questions. I haven't seen Rossi be asked that question, at all. Instead they ask him about the analysis, and he denies having published it. And, of course, he didn't publish it. He let others leak it. It was apparently widely leaked, because I got a copy of the original file, sent under a request for anonymity, and when I realized that the E-CatWorld.com discussions were not looking at the original, but at a redacted version, I published it. And then, of course, I was attacked for allegedly not getting permission from Bo. And they started to think that this test was an IH conspiracy to discredit Rossi, though the mechanism behind that -- how would this discredit Rossi? -- would be a tad obscure. But if Abd did it, there must be some Bad Motive. In fact, my interest is in science and social process, and truth matters. When I published the file, I noted that I could not vouch -- at all -- for its authenticity.
However, Bo could certainly have disclaimed the authenticity of the report. My conclusion so far is that it was authentic, and Bo is a scientist. When he wrote that the sample came from Rossi, I will assume that it came from Rossi, and the opportunity was there. Rossi had visited him at about the date in the file.
Back to the Lugano report, there is no question that there can be a camera color balance problem. However, the report actually claimed the external temperature was 1260 C (with a bit under 800 W input) and 1400 C (with a bit over 900 W input).
There is a literally glaring defect. At 1400 C, the device would be so bright it would be difficult to look at. A photo would be completely washed out, with the room appearing dark because of the normal camera compensation, struggling to find a compromise setting. Essentially, it would be white in the photo. At 1260 C, this would still happen, but some color might possibly be visible.
http://www.elforsk.se/Global/O…er/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
The photos are on page 25. It says "during the test." You can see a heater wire, glowing yellow, more brightly than anything in the image. I think this wire is also visible, dimly, through the alumina, which has become translucent to some degree, which is possibly a source of the emissivity error that may be behind their face-palm error on temperature, and this error, combined with another, completely discredits the test.
The Lugano report was a disaster. The other major error, noticed immediately, was a failure to calibrate at full input power, at least. They calibrated at 500 Watts. So a shift in emissivity of alumina at higher temperature, if that happened, would completely blow their results out of the water. Never fail to calibrate where possible. Reliance on complex calculations, which they did -- that report was a confusing mess -- is always a very bad idea, unless they are independently supported, and they were not. At all.
And then they stonewalled all criticism, and still do. And Mats Lewan sits there with his thumb in his mouth saying that "experts disagree and I don't know." Mats abandoned his role as true investigative reporter years back, becoming passive. That was a loss, but this is what we know about Rossi: actually challenge him, lose your access. He did it again and again, there are many stories.
QuoteI asked them what color it was, but they never responded.
They have been asked many questions about the Lugano report. They have not answered. This, then, is not science, it is a group of professors willing to be led by the nose through a Rossi demonstration. Yes. He left for a time. While the reactor sat there and they did nothing but, what? What exactly did they do for almost a month? My guess is that their expenses were paid. Is Lugano a nice place to visit? How was the food, and how was the company? And, wow! Do you realize, we get to be part of the Most Important Invention of the Century!
Anyone who was likely to ask inconvenient questions probably would not have been allowed to be there. This is how Rossi managed demonstrations for years. "Get that lawyer with a heat gun out of here!"
JedRothwell wrote:
Last time I tried putting a tiny amount of table salt into a gas flame there was a dramatic change in colour due to the sodium. Oops.
Well, Jed, be careful. There are entire troll armies scouring every post for some error.
What I know: black body radiation does not depend on the material. However, some materials will radiate strongly when hot, at specific colors, this is spectrally clear, and can be distinguished from black body radiation, which is not coherent and not a particular color.
Normal radiation we see from hot objects is not from these spectral emissions, so as to the Lugano report, the topic, what Jed wrote is correct, in substance.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame#Flame_color about this issue of the color of a flame. This will not be the color of alumina, which is what is at issue in the Lugano test. The way to know about the specific alumina in the Lugano test would be to calibrate it in two ways: by input power and by known temperature. Neither was done at Lugano, in the region or at temperatures of interest. Calibrating at claimed temperature would have been difficult, it would have melted cell materials, but calibration at the full range of input powers would have been easy. They, in fact, had extra cells, apparently, the story is that there were three. They surely could have put in, full power as actually used. It would have been trivial, and then the IR camera results would have become meaningful.
(Calibration at temperature could have been done with supplemental heating of the alumina alone, and MFMP has done this, I think.)
Every time, Rossi demonstrations have these quirks. The biggest gaffe in Lugano was allowing Rossi to touch the experiment. If he was going to advise, sane researchers would have insisted on written instructions, so that it all would be documented and verifiable. This is what became obvious with Rossi by 2011: an insistence on personal control and an avoidance of independent testing, and that continued even after the excuse disappeared.
There are entire troll armies scouring every post for some error.
It's always the case isn't it, whenever a troll, or astro-turfer wants to discredit an inconvenient fact which is beyond dispute, he makes an ad-hominem attack on the communicator. Let us all be careful!
Alain
transfer of IP is also a condition, this is in fact the most important.
Yes it was, but was it a condition with clear 'success and failure standards'? For example, the $89 million was due on a successful ERV report. How can it be judged that IH has or has not received the required IP?
Here is a scenario, completely hypothetical. Rossi asks the Swedes to replicate his E-cat, for this he gives them some IP which is a copy of the IP he gave to IH. The Swedes successfully replicate.
Of course we will never know, or will we?
Best regards
Frank
