Some Points Regarding a Recent Presentation at ICCF20 on the ‘Lugano Report’ (Rainer Rander)

  • [feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/10/08/some-points-regarding-a-recent-presentation-at-iccf20-on-the-lugano-report-rainer-rander/']The following post has been submitted by Rainer Rander Recently Mr. Robert Greenyer from the so called “MFMP Project” attacked, during a presentation done at ICCF20, the results of the “Lugano Report”, a technical report written, more than two years ago, by an international group of scientists that clearly shows that a prototype of the […][/feedquote]
  • And who is this Qualified Expert on ε and alumina?
    What proof is offered of this assertion?
    How can this person claim that the addition of Mg amounting to less than 1% (undetectable in Lugano analyses) will alter the ε substantially away from standard ε for alumina?
    And (as if the above was true), how can this person claim that the values for alumina ε can be used to calculate anything useful in the Lugano report?
    How exactly does this prove the COP reported in Lugano?
    By what advanced method can Optris somehow imbue the camera with the ability to detect and compensate for IR wavelengths outside of its spectral detection range? (use Total ε, not Spectral ε)


    These, and many more excellent questions, will never be answered coherently and even slightly comprehensively by the proponent, IMO.

  • I am not sufficiently expert to pass judgement on the measurements or the criticisms, but I would like to pass on this purely anecdotal comment


    Having spoken to people who were present in Lugano on the general appearance of the system while operating, I can pass on the following answer to my question.


    "Q. Was the reactor the red colour it looks in the photographs published in the report? There are claims the temperature measurements were too high.


    A. The colour balance in the photos is not a fair represention of how the reactor looked- it glowed bright yellow- even in a well lit room. And it was very uncomfortable to stand anywhere near it."

  • Poor even by ECW standards. Where do they get these guys from?



    It seems this guy has not followed the issue, explained by GSVIT, Bob H ages ago, TC in great detail, MFMP recently, of spectral versus total emissivity. He still thinks they are the same! An amazing lack of research.


    Quote

    In both cases we must conclude that their results are NOT significant in any way. The MFMP report also does not include a real energy calibration, just temperatures being reported, that is necessary in order to know how much power is really injected in the coils.


    Well the Lugano report did not even include any real temperature measurement, let alone energy calibration, so MFMP is one up on this.

    Quote


    We should note also that MFMP is ignoring the fact that the Lugano group had measured emissivity of Alumina on the pipes and also calibrated the empty reactor up to 450 °C obtaining a perfect agreement with the measured power and the known values of Alumina emissivity.


    That is untrue. If you read the original report it is not what they say. They don't actually say how much the alumina emissivity was off the book value, but state that it was different, so that at low temperatures they correct this to conform with the low temperature calibration.


    Even having done this (temperature vs emissivity) calibration - which they did not do at working temperatures, and therefore used wrong emissivity values, they get a 5% error in calculated power out.


    Quote

    Even a small fraction of Mg as found in common “Alumina” cements as “Durapot”, can change material emissivity dramatically.


    That may be true, indeed hardly could be false since some change presumably exists and "dramatically" is nicely unquantified. But it has no relevance to the Lugano criticism except to add another source of error to those that already exist. I note that TC's error bounds (approx +/- 30%) seem wide enough to cope with different alumina compositions and also pore size.




    I agree that a photo looking red does not establish the color. Any such color balance is entirely unreliable unless from a calibrated camera and then viewed with a calibrated display. Neither true here. That is why serious criticism such as TC et al ignores this. However, equally, adducing any positive information from anecdotal accounts of yellow color and "uncomfortable to be near" device is unreliable and must be ignored. You are leaping from the frying pan into the fire, if you imagine this has any value. (I'm not saying you do...).

  • I agree that a photo looking red does not establish the color. Any such color balance is entirely unreliable unless from a calibrated camera and then viewed with a calibrated display. Neither true here. That is why serious criticism such as TC et al ignores this. However, equally, adducing any positive information from anecdotal accounts of yellow color and "uncomfortable to be near" device is unreliable and must be ignored. You are leaping from the frying pan into the fire, if you imagine this has any value. (I'm not saying you do...).


    As I said, my comment was based on an anecdote, and does not in any way reflect my opinions about any of the evidence presented for or against in any of the many stories presented so far. I think you really don't have to point that out, my story adds little but colour to the tales.

  • I fear this E-Cat world post has served to cast fear, uncertainty and doubt upon criticisms of an experiment for which there is much fear, uncertainty and doubt.


    It certainly casts no light on the issues. :) Whoever this person is, they appeal to authority and make claims without references. It is amusing in places, 'the so called "MFMP Project."' It is not the so called MFMP project, that is actually the name of the group. It is as if they think putting "so called" in front of the name casts some aspersion on them. That is sort of like saying, I used the search engine from the so called "Google" group. Silliness.


    That Greenyer keeps giving hat tips to AR at all is a problem in my opinion, but here he gets attacked for "harsh criticism" and being "quite unscientific and unprofessional." Greenyer actually thinks AR has something. Maybe there are some minor anomalies, but if so, it is yet to be understood or reliably demonstrated.

  • On the JoNP there is a comment by JC Renoir pointing out the post to Rossi and stating it was written by Randombit0.
    So Rainer Rander is Randombit0.. hmmm.. but Randombit0 is ... oh forget it.


    Rossi, it's pretty clear. If it is not Rossi, it is someone very close to him. The argument given in the ECW post is pure Rossi, showing exactly the same ideas and expressing the same memes.


    From the beginning, Rossi emphasized "independent professors," as if being a college professor in something-or-other shows expertise in a particular and narrow field. Acland may know the source.


    So, curious, I googled "Rainer Rander." This name only shows up on e-catworld, here (from this thread), on ColdFusionNow -- simply a link to the ECW discussion, and on http://www.ecathome.eu/. That appeared to be a post from a user by the name of Rainer Rander. When I followed the link to the user profile, my browser was attacked, I had to manually shut down the window. This is nasty stuff.


    Rainer Rander has no history of participation in any LENR discussions. This is typical for Rossi socks. He doesn't bother setting them up to be plausibly independent.


    This is the discussion on JONP:



    so who is "JP Renoir"? There is a prior mention in ECW of a post to JONP by "JPRenoir" (no space). Peter Gluck quotes this post with "JP Renoir." The ECW post was correct, here is the original on JONP: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=156#comment-1228409


    I think this is likely Rossi as well, and he slipped with "randombit0."


    I see no sign of a Henrik Lundqvist, either. Each name, individually, could be plausibly deniable. The collective impression is strong. Rossi is desperate, and when his followers don't do enough, aren't quick enough on the draw, he feels he must contribute something to guide them. He must think they are really dumb. The ECW discussion is quite interesting, even surprising.


    And then some of his followers think that IH and APCO are spreading "paid FUD." !!!
    "Oh, what a tangled web we weave...."

  • THHuxley wrote:
    I agree that a photo looking red does not establish the color. Any such color balance is entirely unreliable unless from a calibrated camera and then viewed with a calibrated display. Neither true here. That is why serious criticism such as TC et al ignores this. However, equally, adducing any positive information from anecdotal accounts of yellow color and "uncomfortable to be near" device is unreliable and must be ignored. You are leaping from the frying pan into the fire, if you imagine this has any value. (I'm not saying you do...).


    As I said, my comment was based on an anecdote, and does not in any way reflect my opinions about any of the evidence presented for or against in any of the many stories presented so far. I think you really don't have to point that out, my story adds little but colour to the tales.


    Hah, hah! I only note that extra "u." Can't you British learn to spell?


    The objection about color temperature was an early one, one of the first. It was an indication that something was off. Remember, the claim was that the external temperature was 1400 C and the heat dissipation calculations were based on that. Even if the color was "yellow," this would not be enough. 1400 C should not be just "uncomfortable to be near," it should be white-hot and painful to look at. Sure, camera sensitivities and all that are issues. The claim "entirely unreliable" is not accurate, though. That goes too far. Apparent color temperature is an indication, not a precise measure, though the reliability of it would vary with the level of experience of the observer. Metal smiths certainly do "measure temperature" this way!


    The account of "yellow" is not enough to radically shift the problem, but I will disagree, again, with THH in his claim that this is without value. It has some value, as a rumor passed on by someone whom we do not expect is lying. It all goes in the hopper.

  • The Rainer Randy = randombit0 thing is very likely, and Rossi therefore knowing or being both also.


    Ironic, that the Planet Rossi guys spend all their time talking about internet propaganda and deliberate PR FUD when the (admittedly not at all definite) evidence we have for this comes from them, specifically randombit0s profoundly PR-driven interventions here. I don't count Rossi's logorrhea - which seems more for his benefit than anyone else's.

  • he Rainer Randy = randombit0 thing is very likely, and Rossi therefore knowing or being both also.


    Ironic, that the Planet Rossi guys spend all their time talking about internet propaganda and deliberate PR FUD when the (admittedly not at all definite) evidence we have for this comes from them, specifically randombit0s profoundly PR-driven interventions here. I don't count Rossi's logorrhea - which seems more for his benefit than anyone else's.


    You noticed.

  • I also like "brian'.
    A very British name for such Itanglish writing skills.
    It isn't nice of him to tempt AR to betray his principles of non-interference with the Profs' work.


    Here is the full text (could have put a link but Mr. Lomax would have pasted it anyway. It does help in making one's posts nicely long).


    brian
    October 8, 2016 at 7:33 AM
    Mr Andrea Rossi,
    I like very much the comment of Rainer Rander: do you know who is he ? There are rumors is a physicist of CERN.
    Cheers,
    Brian


    Andrea Rossi
    October 8, 2016 at 7:40 AM
    Brian:
    I do not know who this guy is and I prefer not to participate to comments regarding measurements made by an independent third party.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Bob posted a good comment on ECW in response.


  • I also like "brian'.
    A very British name for such Itanglish writing skills.


    Somehow I missed this earlier conversation, there is also another before what andrea.s quoted
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=169#comment-1237730 is this:



    Hey, Me! He might be talking about me, this idiot drop-out who managed to delude Current Science to publish his paper. However, I have never "lectured a nuclear engineer," to my knowledge. He must be talking about Penon. I've never met him and I haven't had any correspondence or discussion with him. So who is this guy talking about?


    That is totally dense with Rossi memes. I'm not even bothering to Google the name this time, waste of electrons.


    Rossi is either massively confused or having the time of his life, with his masterpiece, a colossal joke he is playing on the planet. I like the latter story a bit better. Very funny, Andrea. Hilarious. At this point, I have no idea if there is enough evidence to convict you of fraud, and because "I was only joking, hehe," tends to not impress judges when you walked away with $11.5 million, I don't know whether or not I'll be able to visit you in prison, but I certainly would and we could have an incredible laugh about all this! Hey, we really got Mary Yugo wound up, didn't we?


    And then there is this: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=169#comment-1237734



    Rossi does know how to write better English, sometimes, but apparently he doesn't bother here. "There are rumors." Yeah. Where? "Rainer" appeared yesterday, with idiotic commentary, that isn't flying even on E-catworld, except for very, very few.


    Oh, wait, Rossi didn't write this, "Brian" did.


    Rossi decides what to keep on his blog and what to delete. He keeps whatever is useful to him at the time. He has a tendency I've noticed to keep posts that say "you will probably delete this." That's transparent.


    By the way, the Lugano report has long been discussed on the CMNS mailing list, which includes many experts in calorimetry. It has an extremely poor reputation among LENR scientists. MFMP started out relatively amateurish, though we all cheered anyway -- and then nagged a bit. I have not studied the present report, but the defense of it on E-Catworld by Bob Greenyer is precious. In the real world, these guys are winning. That people is only publishable on JCMNS, because the rest of the planet doesn't give a fig about Lugano, but it richly deserves that publication.


    The holdouts seem to have not noticed that the Lugano report was rejected even from arXiv, it wasn't considered worthy of publication in a mainstream journal, and they did not submit it to JCMNS. None of the professors were expert in what they did. When a "professor" works outside their specific expertise, they are not any better than an informed and careful amateur. Rossi showed by 2011 that he had no interest in science, the real thing.

  • Rossi does know how to write better English, sometimes, but apparently he doesn't bother here. "There are rumors." Yeah. Where? "Rainer" appeared yesterday, with idiotic commentary, that isn't flying even on E-catworld, except for very, very few.


    Oh, wait, Rossi didn't write this, "Brian" did.


    Yes, I don't know if AR is Rander, but he is clearly "brian." Same punctuation idiosyncrasies. He sure does like making masterpieces. he, he, he


    He really doesn't even seem to care that people know. They just go on quoting his self-sustained conversations with no apparent recognition. he, he, he :P

  • THH wrote:

    However, equally, adducing any positive information from anecdotal accounts of yellow color and "uncomfortable to be near" device is unreliable and must be ignored.


    Abd wrote:

    The account of "yellow" is not enough to radically shift the problem, but I will disagree, again, with THH in his claim that this is without value. It has some value, as a rumor passed on by someone whom we do not expect is lying. It all goes in the hopper.


    Alan wrote:

    As I said, my comment was based on an anecdote, and does not in any way reflect my opinions about any of the evidence presented for or against in any of the many stories presented so far. I think you really don't have to point that out, my story adds little but colour to the tales.


    BobG wrote:

    As harsh as your words are, we have received similarly harsh words from those that criticise us for saying we cannot fully dismiss all of the excess heat based on our experimental data.


    I'm putting these comments together to make a point about how evidence can be analysed. Here, I agree with Alan, his comment is interesting as are all anecdotal comments, but has no merit. Abd takes a different view and thinks that all these "no merit" fragments are best squirrelled away and perhaps when correlated will reveal something. Technically, Abd is correct. It is unconsidered trifles from which new concepts often arise. However practically I judge he is wrong. Here the color "evidence" translated into "(very weakly) maybe Lugano was hotter than the critics think". In combination with other evidence, later, that has no value.


    Similarly Bob H's comment. First: as a definite skeptic I can say that I have no harsh words for the detailed work done by MFMP on Lugano. It is interesting of itself, adds to our understanding, and of significantly greater sophistication than the original report. Also, I agree 100% that we cannot fully dismiss the possibility of excess heat based on MFMP data. In fact excess heat can never be dismissed, No experiment is accurate enough to show it does not exist, quite apart from the fact that LENR advocates convincingly argue that the conditions for excess heat are subtle and will not always exist.


    Bob here goes further, saying (effectively) that his data is accurate enough to validate excess heat here. There is a world of difference between:


    "This data contradicts (some) excess heat" (impossible, always)


    and


    "This data validates excess heat". That is, the carefully judged lower error bar lies above COP=1.


    I cannot say whether I will agree with Bob until I have seen his data written up properly. And, excess heat in these experiments does not necessarily imply LENR (since the N is a leap at lower excess energy density levels). This was a long test and therefore more likely to present a real anomaly that could push thinking towards "N" or some other non-chemical mechanism, but Bob's comment is not precise enough for us to know whether that is his view - we would need the numbers.


    The point of this rather complex post is that I agree with LENR advocates here that much of the "LENR cannot exist" argument is facile. Also as a matter of technicality LENR, as a hypothesis, is too weak at the moment ever to disprove because it makes no definite predictions. However, I see that much of the "there is so much evidence LENR must exist" argument is just wrong, but subtly wrong. Many people find an accumulation of thousands of little fragments of evidence, each non-conclusive, of the same nature as Alan's "yellow color", to be conclusive. People are not good at such integrative reasoning because we all look for interesting patterns. Therefore we can easily find them when they do not exist. And when evidence is so weak, we can select (and on this site have selected for us) a biassed set of weak evidence showing an undeniable pattern. For example, no-one here is going to post, or remember, "this is very weak anecdotal evidence that points in the direction of an experiment looking for excess energy having a lower energy than the analysis suggests". It is just not interesting. Whereas the converse statement sticks more, because it is interesting.


    So how do we distinguish the "helps find new concepts" patterns from the "informed by bias" ones? It comes down to specificity and detail. If a particular unlikely set of circumstances leads to excess heat that is potentially of value in discovering the reason. If "many people have found excess heat, but they were all looking for it and the evidence is never strong" the evidence has less than one binary bit of value. It pushes us in the direction of an already conceptualised possibility without adding detail.

  • Ironic, that the Planet Rossi guys spend all their time talking about internet propaganda and deliberate PR FUD when the (admittedly not at all definite) evidence we have for this comes from them, specifically randombit0s profoundly PR-driven interventions here. I don't count Rossi's logorrhea - which seems more for his benefit than anyone else's.


    It is not immediately clear whether Rossi is randombit0, and randombit0 is Rainer Rander. Rainer's writing style differs greatly from that of Rossi's. The alleged impersonations by you and others are no more than that: allegations. It is more likely that those who keep making such allegations are doing the impersonations. The imposters probably feel like they are toying with Rossi. But Rossi is likely just going along with it and toying them back.


    Rossi is cunning, but no more so than IH and IH's surrogates. It is a dog-eat-dog world.

  • This is also quite amusing.
    A guy named Jed forgets his own name and signs as Mark. Oh my.


    Of course it could be trolls. But normally you find the troll bragging on some other blog for his achievement and happy like a child. This was often the case on Ecatnews.com .



    "Jed
    October 9, 2016 at 2:32 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    I totally approve your answer to Mark Leiber.
    Godspeed,
    Mark"

  • IHFB,


    You could be right, although I tend to agree with the others that this Rainer is Rossi writing to himself. He has done this kind of stuff almost since JONP's inception, although it became pretty blatant, and more frequent, as his relationship with IH deteriorated. A not so clever way around his lawyers advise to shut up about the suit, IH, or anything related, until this is resolved in court, mediation, or settlement.


    Obviously, and comically, he is signaling IH, the jury pool, judge, us, other licensees, anyone who will listen, that his IP has been replicated...lending weight to his court filings contending IH is a bunch of bumbling idiots, as they are too incompetent to do what others around the world have done.


    He must think his ruse will cause IH to come knocking on his condo door with a check for $89 million in hand, or at the least sway the jury. I am sure IH is getting a chuckle out of this, as much as many of us here are. :)


    BTW, you never answered my question the other day: If it was your money, with what we publicly know, would you have written the check for $89 million?

  • If it was your money, with what we publicly know, would you have written the check for $89 million?


    If I were in IH's shoes and based on the express language in the Rossi/IH agreement, I would never write a check for $89 million because there is no incentive to do such a thing. IH got everything they wanted with 2 of the 3 payment installations.

  • Bob here goes further, saying (effectively) that his data is accurate enough to validate excess heat here. There is a world of difference between:


    One thing is clear: An emissivity of 0.95 for Alumina cement is to high. The literature gives values between 0.65 and 0.95 (peak!! see handbook fig. 4). I would calculate with 0.85.


    An other error not disscussed in the papers is the spot measurement on a spheric body which underestimates the Temperature (of Lugano.. & mfp?).
    As a conclusion we can say that mfp is on the underestimating side of the guess play...



    For those who like to dig in the manual: http://www.optris.co.uk/spot-s…ds/Zubehoer/IR-Basics.pdf
    The handbook of ALU ceramics: http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/1996/T1792.pdf
    Or here from a specialist of hot alumina: http://www.em-ea.org/guide books/book-2/2.5 insulation & refractories .pdf

  • One thing is clear: An emissivity of 0.95 for Alumina cement is to high. The literature gives values between 0.65 and 0.95 (peak!! see handbook fig. 4). I would calculate with 0.85.


    Thank you for collecting some useful reference links. A brief look at Fig.4 of the Handbook seems to show emissivity of 0.92 - 0.97 at ~1000°C over most of the spectral region of interest.(7.5-11 um). ε declines in the tailing region of 11 - 13 um to about 0.7, for an average over that region of ~0.82. Thus the average over the entire spectral region of interest is about 0.90.


    Higgins takes this into account in his calculations, and also includes corrections for the non-linear spectral sensitivity of the Optris camera bolometer. His paper is available for further study at https://drive.google.com/file/…4cOM2TWU5Vk80VkxwYVU/view