Rossi vs IH: (Update: Sep. 9 20– James A. Bass now a Third Party in IH’s Counter Complaint)

  • One of the most perplexing aspects of the Lugano test, to me, is the fact that the reactor came with a self-sustain mode, the reactor was made by IH, and the Lugano scientists chose not to use it:



    IHFB,


    I think they were afraid to use it. Just put yourself in their shoes; kept "off" and they were safe. Turn it "on", and anything could happen. Maybe even take out a city block! :)


    That is a joke, so don't green (ink running thick today) me Alan. :) Seriously, I have wondered about that switch ever since I read about it. Even brought it up a few times. I think it was Eric that felt it was for something not associated with SSM. Forgot what he said though.


    Too bad the Swedish profs on the Lugano team did not answer questions like they promised. That probably would have been one asked.


  • "Paid spin doctors?" In response to alleged "nonsense," Rends posts more, with no evidence, just his reaction.


    Who says "we have to trust them"? Jed writes what he knows, which includes information revealed to him privately, which can be called 'Inside information." I never fully trust such information. It can easily be flawed, even if the person is totally sincere and honest. But definitely, Jed Rothwell is not a "paid spin doctor." And I know I'm not. Who is? This is Planet Rossi paranoia.


    Rossi has claimed that this forum is ... I don't remember the wording ... something like controlled by the people against him. But Rends is a moderator here.


    What is really going on is that if evidence is carefully presented, instead of actually examining it and critiquing it if necessary, it is dismissed as "paid FUD." That is a technique for maintaining held belief, and it can extend far beyond preposterous. There are still people who believe in nonsense that actually was shown long ago to have no basis. They may continue to believe until they die.

  • Now, perhaps the photo was saw was misleading. Perhaps the reactor was actually white-hot, and they simply did not tell us. However, this critique has been around, as I recall, since 2014. Nobody who was there has claimed "white-hot." It would be obvious, probably painfully bright to look at.


    A photograph on a digital camera, which is not set to a specific ISO and a specific white balance, and not calibrated with a white/grey/color calibration card ($10) is meaningless.


    MFMP persists in doing this too.

  • That's the main problem, I think that one of our Admins have 'changed sides', that is no problem at all, but I think he changed the side because he was paid by IH/Cherokee and that is corruption!


    Greets
    Felix


    Woh, that is for me probably.
    Your the second to accuse me in 48h.


    I just see the data, that is my problems.I'm kind and it takes time for me to admit I've been fooled by someone I previously defended in public, but unlike some I can do it, because data are stronger than my ego.



    If I was paid, I would organize LENr experiments, PdD in fact, and try to test Ed's ideas, exploiting few contacts I have. (That is a call to Tom Darden to fund me 8-) ... until now he did not paye me, nor any body. I lose modest money, many illusions, and huge time on that affair)


    What is sure in Thomas Clarke is the error ins emissivity usage, this cannot be discussed.
    The data available cannot say COP=1 (unlike what TC say), but can confirm the COP is totally wrong, and temp are wrong, making it clear that Rossi covered a pathetic failure.
    Some other details let it clear he did not only covered them but expected them (like type K TC )


    What cannot be discussed also is that if E-cat works, either Rossi or Darden is the most irrational and stupid guy on earth, because they both could be trillionaire if cooperating, even if refusing to work together (just Darden develop LENR in US, and Rossi in EU).


    I never get any contact with Rossi or Darden. I could have with Carl Page or Dewey... Carl seemed a nice guy, and Dewey is ... full of energy. Anyway I'm shy...
    Maybe in fact I had a possible contact with a Rossi's puppet when in 2011 someone contacted me to control his blog ... Astroturfing, APCO method ? I was not yet active so I refused.. 6 mont later I was active here, on David's creation...


    The SOB who make our family of LENR supporters tears away, accusing each others of corruption and delusion, should be hanged by the most painful part of his body

  • A photograph on a digital camera, which is not set to a specific ISO and a specific white balance, and not calibrated with a white/grey/color calibration card ($10) is meaningless.


    MFMP persists in doing this too.


    It is surely not a scientific instrument, but the pictures I have taken at temps >1100C look nothing like the Lugano pics. The point is that they didn't even address this simple question: were the pictures consistent with your observations?


    Probably, the professors could do some analysis with their own data that would help put this to rest. They could look at the data for the fat end pieces since these would have received heating through conduction and would have been less likely to be affected by the emissivity problems due to their thickness. Or am I missing something? It would probably appear nonsensical in relationship to the purported temperatures of the central region.

  • MFMP persists in doing this too.


    This assertion is completely false and should be retracted. The visible light photos we publish are for descriptive purposes only.


    During our live streaming of experiments, the camera showing the hot reactor is equipped with a 3M IR filter, and the color balance it shows is roughly comparable to what is seen by the eye at the time. We draw no conclusions from those images regarding the temperature of the reactor, other than perhaps "it looks hot".

  • Yes, you can get a good idea of big problems by comparing the cap temperatures with the rod temperatures of the dummy run compared with the active run. Using the proportion between cap and rod temperatures from the active run to estimate the dummy rod temperature from the cap temperature, I show that the temperature of the dummy rod is overestimated by 1.5 to 1.7 times (predicted values of 661 to 763 vs. measured average values of 443). That is actually based on a regression equation, but it works quite well with a simple proportion.


    If we look at it the other way, using the proportions of the dummy data to predict the active rod temperature, I get temperatures of 740 to 830. I used the data in tables 3 and 6. The 830 corresponds to file no 15 from table 6. The professors referenced the rod temp as being 1410.


    Again, you don't have to go overboard with analysis to know that something is very wrong with their data.

  • Dear Alain, no problem for me, I'm a father and I am concerned with the future of my children and I can swear on the lives of my children that no one can buy me!


    Well, echoing what Alan wrote, my choice here is to cry. I have seven children and six grandchildren and I would never use my children in an oath this way! It was gratuitous and completely unnecessary, since nobody was asserting that Rends was "bought," rather, the response appears to indicate that Rends believes Alain was bought and paid, thinks he is lying, a sign that Rends has bought the Planet Rossi paranoia. And having a paranoid parent is not ideal for children, either.


    My children are not pawns to be used in a stupid argument.


    That paranoia is, as others have pointed out, tearing apart the LENR community (though the main CMNS community is mostly unaffected, Peter Gluck being the major exception).


    Because paranoia is an emotional reaction, it readily dominates analysis. Out of the huge body of data available to us, it selects what confirms the fears.


    It is not about the content. It is entirely possible to address issues of, say, undue influence, or even worse, without fear. Martial artists know this: if they are afraid they are vulnerable, their responses to threats will not be precise and effective. If they release any fear that comes up, the story is that they cannot be cut. I don't necessarily believe that, except that it is likely that the probability of being cut goes way down. This stuff actually works, in training.

  • Quote

    COP=1 (unlike what TC say)


    Just a small point but it is very often ignored so worth repeating here.


    TC, in his comment, did not say the data proved COP=1, or COP=1.07. He calculated a COP of 1.07 from both tests using the same methodology as in the Report but correcting the obvious errors. He stated error bars (not well quantified) of +/- 30%. He gave a large number of potential error sources, hedging his bets I guess because giving precise and meaningful error bounds in this case with so much uncertainty would be difficult.


    The apparent accuracy of the COP as quoted by TC is relevant because nearly all of the errors are similar between the two different temperature tests. However the recalculated COP is identical to within 1%. That knocks on the head one of the key claims in the paper, that COP "acceleration" - which could not easily be explained by normal errors - proved some power excess from a temperature sensitive reaction. This meme has been prevalent amongst replicators. The data from Lugano shows exactly no temperature sensitivity in the power output and therefore is consistent with the simplest no reaction case.


    The error many people make is to take a stated COP of say 1.07 as meaning that this is known. There are always error bounds and without knowing them you cannot say what 1.07, or any other number, really means.


    Working out error bounds is difficult. For example the Lugano authors did this (arbitrarily, without justification) and had an error estimate that ignored many of the possible sources of error. TC did not attempt this difficult problem, and his results therefore are very loose if used to predict the precise COP of that experiment.


    However what they do show is that whatever reaction happened, it delivered identical COP between the two different temperature active tests.

  • Zeus,


    I do not think that linked very well. But since my name, TC, and ECN's are mentioned in the same sentence, I would assume this was from when, on ECNs -a hotbed of pseudoskeptics mind you, I argued with TC on his own Lugano conclusion, with his best, and final, calculated COP "guess".


    In which he concluded that Lugano showed a slight overunity of 1.07 (revolutionary), and in line with LENR (not the + stuff), with a possible upside COP of anywhere from 30-40 % greater (even more evolutionary). Well beyond MFMPs conclusion, or smart Italians like Paradigmnoia :) .


    That said, this TC guy did also say that Lugano could be as low as COP 1.

  • If we look at it the other way, using the proportions of the dummy data to predict the active rod temperature, I get temperatures of 740 to 830. I used the data in tables 3 and 6. The 830 corresponds to file no 15 from table 6. The professors referenced the rod temp as being 1410.


    I looked at TC's recalculation. He calculates 713 to 779. My values are a bit higher based on estimated rod temperature from the cap temperature (740 to 830). But he may be calculating the temp over the full device including the caps, which may account for the difference.

  • That said, this TC guy did also say that Lugano could be as low as COP 1.


    That is certainly an implication of TC's published report, encompassed in the conclusion that COP=1.07 +/-30%.


    But Clarke's statements above from ECN are different. They (as Alain also notes) explicitly state that COP=1, with no error bounds, or scientific thoroughness. Just COP=1.


    This appears to be Clarke's opinion about Lugano, and he is free to offer his opinion to whoever.


    THHuxley in his comment above seems to be denying that Clarke has offered such bold opinions, despite them being pointed out previously, at the link I included.


    In fact, THH argued about their meaning, for some reason, (perhaps not liking the implication that Clarke let his guard down and revealed his bias), but I personally think those COP=1 statements are very clear, and speak for themselves.

  • Zeuss wrote:


    Thomas Clarke wrote:
    @Shane. I hate to be so blunt, but this is a lie. Rossi’s demos have gone from claimed COP=100 to claimed COP=3, and we know that the 3 is really 1. (26/12/15)


    Thomas Clarke wrote:
    [it] would appear to be a lie, since COP = 1 from the latest hot-cat test. (27/12/15)


    Same issue here. No error bars. The claim of COP=3 is just wrong. This was an informal comment and indeed to the precision given (one s.f.) the COP is undoubtedly 1 not 3. No?


    This was, you say and I believe, a blog comment. Not a formal carefully written report. You are arguing that when somone says COP=1 without error bars that must mean COP=1 (precisely). If you think about it, that is absurd. There is always a tolerance in a statement - the real COP (let alone measured) will never be precisely 1 due to internal reactions. So logically any unqualified statement must always be taken with a pinch of salt. All we can infer from this is that the error bars were considered by TC to be well outside COP=3, which they were, and that COP=1 is a good 1 sig fig approximation: which it was.


    This seems like angels on head of pin territory: but it fascinates me and it is more important than that. It interests me how communication - always inexact - is interpreted or misinterpreted. And if a blog such as this (or indeed scientists reading other scientists papers) are to communicate well these issues of certainty and error bars are always present, and always important. It cannot be inferred that the Lugano device COP is absolutely known to be 1.0 +/-30%. All we can say is that the measurements published in the report indicate that (with the error bars loose - a careful analysis would no doubt change them). Really very little is absolute in science. However, the maths processing the given data from Lugano is exact - although its applicability to the real system only approximate, and the error made by the testers is 100% provable.


    Also, however saintly TC might or might not have been no doubt he made mistakes, as we all do. The real benchmark is admitting to those when made. But note that often what we have here is a failure in communication, or a subjective difference in judgement, not a mistake. In that case all that can be said is that such judgements differ.


    Another aspect of this communication issue is the desire to convince. Theoretically, if interested in reality, we should have no desire to convince others, just want to say what we believe to be true. However that segue's into wanting to correct errors in alternate positions, where we believe them false. Nothing wrong with that. But, being humans, there is always some subtext. And on blogs such as this a lot of what goes on from everyone (including me) can be a sort of "want to have the last word" parlour game. The key for me is treating those who hold different views with respect, while being willing to clearly state when the views themselves appear to be wrong. I can't say it is made easier by others who reckon "needling" people is the way to unearth hidden truths, or who spend their time assuming bad motives of others and insulting them.


    Wyttenbach here is interesting in that he makes cogent and often correct points, but in a manner that (he knows) is very unbalanced and one-sided. He will correct me if I'm wrong in his motives I'm sure. I can see why he believes this a useful method to get at the truth. I also think it disrespectful to others, and not, overall, helpful.


    I took THH as pseudonym here because he as a scientist was pre-eminently somone who knew he was fallible, and struggled with it. He is my hero for that reason. And yes - as pointed out here - being a creature of his time he had views we can see are unpleasantly racist and (possibly - I have not checked) sexist. No more so than nearly all others from his culture, and they do not much inform his writings on science. That failure does not make his contribution any less. And for me his key contribution is the steadfast belief that in science we must continually strive to see our own mistakes, and are indeed likely to make them due to inevitable biasses. It is as true now as then. I'd hope and expect that given debate with a modern person on the topic of racism he would end up revising his ideas about what is acceptable language, and about the science pertaining to anthropology and race (actually there is a long debate there that I really do not want to have because it is a distraction, so I hope this will not happen!).


    Regards, THH

  • Quote

    I looked at TC's recalculation. He calculates 713 to 779. My values are a bit higher based on estimated rod temperature from the cap temperature (740 to 830). But he may be calculating the temp over the full device including the caps, which may account for the difference.


    TC's report states that the calculation he does is necessarily approximate. He did not have the full per segment data that the profs used to obtain their averages and had to work backwards from what was published. He also did not do a full calculation of convection for the same reason, but approximated the system as (I think?) a two body system of two different temperatures each of which then he applied different approximations to. If that sounds hairy well then it is, but since the error bars are much larger, for other reasons, than the errors from this it does not matter. The approximations relate mostly to convective components which are much smaller than the radiative component, and the approximations themselves are not too bad.


    One of the issues in trying for greater accuracy is that I have no information (and there is no indication that TC did) of how good the Lugano calculations of convective dissipation are. There are a few known issues: local air temperature, turbulent flow around edges, all of which make the theory used incomplete. But, this is all of secondary importance since radiative losses are the main thing.


    Also, if you run his code (which he should have put on github - silly having to reverse engineer from a PDF) you will see that he does a primitive type of sensitivity analysis. The code as shown prints out COP for various permutations of input parameters such as emissivity. The headline value is a "best guess" and he shows what happens if you choose plausible values either side of that.


    More generally, the issue with trying to get more accuracy out of this data that I don't like is the extreme complexity of the necessary analysis. With a live experiment that can be controlled and checked that is fine, but with this dead data the more elaborate your calculations the more the likelihood of some uncaught error. It is still interesting, as a theoretical exercise, to try to get more accuracy, but the caveat remains.


    regards, THH

  • OK, you make a lot of good points, as always. I agree precise communication is important, but sometimes difficult over this medium. In hindsight maybe 'COP~1' may have been preferred.


    Regarding 'needling', the word makes me think of bursting balloons, or maybe deflating overblown egos, although saying that in itself could also be perceived as needling, in a way, which is not my intention. :-)


    I'm waiting for MFMPs take on the Lugano question, after all, they did what those interested in the real figures wish they could have done... Build a replica ecat, heat it up, and point an optris at it.


    No doubt there will be plenty of meat for discussion... Which might reduce the recent levels of petty squabbling. (Which some/most of us - yes, even you Abd - seem to secretly enjoy)....