Some details on the MFMP work on the Lugano thermal verification were well-summarized in Infinite Energy.
Some Points Regarding a Recent Presentation at ICCF20 on the ‘Lugano Report’ (Rainer Rander)
-
-
Some details on the MFMP work on the Lugano thermal verification were well-summarized in Infinite Energy.
Infinite Energy Magazine funded the development of the replica at HUG (Thanks IE Magazine!). The co-analysis of the data from replica testing with Lugano data that is soon to be published in J of CMNS is not included in that article. -
@BobHiggins,
Are there still some photos available from the color calibrator tests somewhere? The video is not anywhere as clear as the photos in the Infinite Energy article. -
Regarding the iterative method for ε used in Lugano, they supply two references. BOTH require multiple IR bands or references to use the method properly.
Only one IR source/detector was used, and therefore the iteration method used in Lugano was not based on the recommended method in the references they supplied."The values for ε relevant to each area were assigned recursively, by correcting the settings until the same matching between temperature and emissivity indicated by Plot 1 was achieved. Iterative methods for determining the emissivity of an observed object are well known in the literature: some examples may be found in [4], [5]."
-Lugano report Page 9[4] A. Gillespie, S. Rokugawa, A temperature and emissivity separation algorithm for advanced spaceborne thermal emission and reflection radiometer (ASTER) images, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, VOL. 36, N. 4, July 1998.
https://www.cis.rit.edu/~cnspci/references/gillespie1998.pdf
[5] Volker Tank, Method for the contactless radiation measurement of the temperature of an object independent of its emissivity, and device for carrying out this method, EP0129150.
-
Are there still some photos available from the color calibrator tests somewhere? The video is not anywhere as clear as the photos in the Infinite Energy article.
I am sure they are available, but that is a question for Alan Goldwater. -
My notes including photos of the Color Calibrator are available at
http://tinyurl.com/kjtptvt
Further notes on the construction of the device can be seen at
http://tinyurl.com/ou3lt65
and
http://tinyurl.com/pw49ovpIn examining the data, it should be remembered that the spectral sensing range of the Williamson pyrometer is 1-2 microns, and its emissivity measurements reflect this departure from the sensing range of the Optris camera.
-
The simple fact is that the co-analysis used in the latest evaluation of the Lugano data by MFMP does NOT rely upon or use the actual emissivity of the alumina - it is irrelevant to the excess heat analysis that was performed.
Bob,
After reading all of the claims by some posters of fraud on Rossi's part, I think that at least for the moment it is worth repeating that - if I understand it correctly - the MFMP analysis does not rule out the possibility of a COP > 1 (around 1.15 - 1.3?). This is consistent with recent work by Parkhomov, Songjiang Chen and several others, as well as the recent report of Tom Conover. (Also, MFMP itself believes that in similar work it has seen a "signal" at least twice.) So, perhaps Rossi's "recipe" is not so bad after all?P.S. If the Lugano professors made an error in their analysis which led to an inflated estimate of the COP, and also didn't choose to test it using self-sustained mode, is this Rossi's fault?
P.P.S. For those pathoskeptics here who have already decided that everything is known about Rossi's techology, even though they have no firsthand knowledge about the one-year test (I'm excluding Jed Rothwell because apparently he claims such knowledge even if it is not firsthand) I'm a member of the open-minded (not "closet-minded" as Jack Cole suggests) "minority". Judging by the small number of regular - and extremely repetitive - posters on this forum compared to ECW, as well as by the relatively high quality of a number of the posts on ECW, I would guess that the readers/posters on ECW are neither a minority nor are they any less technically qualified or knowledgeable than those who post here.
-
Trust, being predictable and being able to predict what will partner do is key to business. (Same for driving)
<a href="https://www.schneier.com/books/liars_and_outliers/" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">schneier.com/books/liars_and_outliers/</a>
Quote from Bruce Schneier: “
<b>Liars and Outliers</b>
<i>Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive</i>
<i>A book</i>…Alain, I may have limited experience in business, but let my share a general experience I made in life: More often than not, things don't go according to the books...
-
That's the thing about business and business contracts. Without good will on both sides they are toast.
-
I confirm that there are people who think they are doing a "magnificient" job, and try to fool their partner, who is surprised to see a so brillant partner behaving so stupidly, and who thus manage to dump the traitor quickly.
Many inventors have this kind of way of mind, thinking they are key to the success, and they stay alone like Golum with his precious.Trust (requiring, giving and deserving) is essential, and successful serial businessman learned it, sometime the hard way.
EDIT: I talk of real case(s), one of which is not Rossi&co.
-
Judging by the small number of regular - and extremely repetitive - posters on this forum compared to ECW, as well as by the relatively high quality of a number of the posts on ECW, I would guess that the readers/posters on ECW are neither a minority nor are they any less technically qualified or knowledgeable than those who post here.
Three other forums worth mentioning in this connection: ICCF (a yearly convention), CMNS (a mailing list) and Vortex (another mailing list). There's of course E-Cat News as well, which is now defunct, but not due to a lack of participation, as I understand it. If one goes beyond LENR Forum and E-Cat World, it's not difficult to imagine that the E-Cat world posters are a vocal minority, especially when considered in the context of the views of LENR researchers, although this is something that is difficult to quantify. I think only a few people here such as yourself will take issue with such a characterization. -
Quizzical,
Rossi having a small effect is still on the table. Many here that you lump into the pseudoskeptic camp, have said as much. Even IH leaves open that possibility in their court filings.
There are many anecdotal accounts going back to 2009 of independent Ecat verifications, however I have never seen any relate what those power levels, or COPs were. My guess is that they were probably in line with the much lower COPs being being seen now by a wide range of researchers.
Rossi however, over time, has floated some high COP's (200 at one point), but always "promised" to deliver COP6...supposedly for safety reasons. The VT must have also shown COP6, as the GPT required minimum level of performance (COP6) was based upon the VT. Those high COPs he claims though, are suspect, as they are mere Rossisas than anything that could pass scientific muster, and we all know how he exaggerates.
Another scenario is that Rossi *had* something, but lost it as have so many in the field, including PFs, have. Abd has talked about that.
So all is not lost...yet.
-
There's of course E-Cat News as well, which is now defunct, but not due to a lack of participation, as I understand it
That's pretty hilarious, everyone who saw it knew that this "website" was an ongoing hit piece against Rossi and his tech, and nothing like a real "grassroots" info source
-
if I understand it correctly - the MFMP analysis does not rule out the possibility of a COP > 1 (around 1.15 - 1.3?). This is consistent with recent work by Parkhomov, Songjiang Chen and several others, as well as the recent report of Tom Conover. (Also, MFMP itself believes that in similar work it has seen a "signal" at least twice.) So, perhaps Rossi's "recipe" is not so bad after all?
This is a correct assessment of the conclusion from the latest analysis.Personally, I am not convinced that Rossi has no technology to produce excess heat. Having a technology that can produce excess heat has no bearing on whether Rossi met contract requirements with IH. The clues that lead me to believe Rossi has/had something begin with Sergio Focardi's belief that Rossi had a technology to produce excess heat and Focardi measured gamma coming from the experiment. Focardi was an experienced nuclear scientist with a reputation of high regard. The most valuable experience of Focardi's, that would be more difficult to fake, is for the system, having no movable parts, to have produced transient gamma. Of course, it is possible that Focardi was fooled into believing there was also excess heat, but I give Focardi the benefit of the doubt.
A second evidence that Rossi has something that produces some excess heat is the success seen in the Ni + LAH experiments that have been performed by others. The information for these experiments was derived from analysis of the Rossi/IH Lugano hotCat. The latest co-analysis of data shows that it is possible that the Lugano hotCat had XH commensurate with what others are reporting for this fuel system.
Are these proof that Rossi has XH? NO - the standard for "proof" has not been met. Is there anything that proves Rossi has NO XH? NO - this would be hard to prove. The median results suggest (to me) that Rossi does have something worthy of follow-up experiments.
-
This is consistent with recent work by Parkhomov
The people at the U. Missouri SKINR labs made extensive efforts to replicate Parkhomov, using far better instruments and techniques than he did. They got nothing. No sign of excess heat. I conclude for now that Parkhomov has nothing. Until I see better evidence from him I will stick to that conclusion.I think it is a big mistake to assume that experiment X or Y is real before it has been independently replicated. Most unique results in most scientific experiments in most fields turn out to be wrong. History shows that failure is the normal outcome in fundamental scientific research. You have to realize that when you evaluate a new claim. That does not mean you automatically dismiss all new claims, or hold them in contempt, the way Mary Yugo or Robert Park do. It means you withhold judgement until the claim is replicated several times.
Pseudoskeptics such as Yugo and Park are usually right because they are betting the casino will win. This is looking at political races a week before the election, finding candidates who are at least 10 points ahead in gerrymandered districts, and betting they will win.
-
especially when considered in the context of the views of LENR [non-LENR+] researchers
FTFY. The fact of the matter is that the majority of LENR+ researchers frequent and participate at ECW, and the participation and test results are of considerable quality. And the momentum is there and growing.
-
FTFY. The fact of the matter is that the majority of LENR+ researchers frequent and participate at ECW, and the participation and test results are of considerable quality. And the momentum is there and growing.
As I'll be happy to continue to point out, "LENR+" is Peter Gluck's tendentious term. You're obviously free to continue to use it, tendentiously. That said, I think there's something kind of cool about the idea of hobbyists upstaging the established LENR researchers. I am not happy with many things I've seen with much of the research of the kind published in JCMNS and ICCF proceedings. But I also take issue with a lack of rigor among the hobbyists, as well as a readiness to quickly jump to conclusions when there are other possibilities to be ruled out.Out of the hobbyists, most of my hope for any kind of rigor is placed in MFMP, which, despite the occasional publicity stunts, has some good people who are working hard to really understand what's going on and rule out competing hypotheses. I may not always agree with their conclusions, but they make themselves available to back them up and answer questions, which I really appreciate.
If the people on E-Cat world can put something together that withstands scrutiny and vindicates Rossi's many claims (or even some of them), I will be very happy with that outcome. For one I'll see it as a victory for citizen science.
-
-
Lest we not forget, the current established LENR researchers were the ones referred to as hobbyists for many years.
That is incorrect. No one referred to them as hobbyists. They are all professional scientists at universities, national laboratories and corporations. Most of them were important professors with clout, because without it they would not have gotten permission and funding to do the research. People called them many bad names, but no one in the mass media, Wikipedia or in any other mainstream venue called the hobbyists. -
No one referred to them as hobbyists.
That is essentially what they were referred to, perhaps not using that exact term in every instance, although some even referred to themselves using that term. It isn't necessarily a pejorative. It should also be noted that I count quite a few established scientists that are associated with large institutions among the LENR+ research community. Not all LENR+ researchers are hobbyists, just as not all LENR researchers are established credentialed scientists.
