[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]
Some Points Regarding a Recent Presentation at ICCF20 on the ‘Lugano Report’ (Rainer Rander)
-
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?
QuoteDisplay More
Some Points Regarding a Recent Presentation at ICCF20 on the ‘Lugano Report’ (Rainer Rander)Posted on October 8, 2016 by Frank Acland • 17 CommentsThe 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 Rossi High Temperature Reactor, was producing Energy with a COP of about 3.6.
The harsh critical statements, claiming that the whole analysis was wrong and that just a tiny effect was observed, was spread over the net without any details and this behavior pattern seemed immediately to me, and other colleagues from European Universities and Research Centers, quite unscientific and unprofessional.
In fact, I was able to retrieve from the Internet a document, dated August 2016, http://magicsound.us/MFMP/MFMP_Research-August2016.pdf, written by the same person in name of the MFMP where substantially the same declarations are made adding that: “the Optris thermal camera needed an emissivity in the range of 0.95 to match temperatures seen by the thermocouples”.
This statement is absolutely surprising and disappointing. We should remember that Alumina total integrated emissivity is, at low temperature, about 0.64 and that this figure di decreases with increasing temperatures.
Supposing that there was no problem with the thermal contact of the Thermocouple, that is not trivial due to the fact that Alumina is a good thermal insulator, the figure obtained by MFMP simply means that the material used by them was not pure Alumina.
Even a small fraction of Mg as found in common “Alumina” cements as “Durapot”, can change material emissivity dramatically.
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.QuoteIn 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.
QuoteEven 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.Quote from AlanDisplay MoreI 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."
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.
-
These, and many more excellent questions, will never be answered coherently and even slightly comprehensively by the proponent, IMO.
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. -
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.
-
Mad shills being mad: weekend special
-
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. -
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:
QuoteDisplay MoreJP Renoir
October 7, 2016 at 6:50 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
A scientist with the nickname of “Randombit” has published on Ecatworld the following comment:“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 scientist that clearly shows that o prototype of the your High Temperature Reactor, was producing Energy with a COP of about 3.6.
The harsh critical statements, claiming that the whole analysis was wrong and that just a tiny effect was observed, was spread over the net without any details and this behavior pattern seemed immediately to me, and other colleagues from European Universities and Research Centers, quite unscientific and unprofessional.
In fact, I was able to retrieve from the Internet a document, dated August 2016, http://magicsound.us/MFMP/MFMP_Research-August2016.pdf, written by the same person in name of the
MFMP where substantially the same declarations are made adding that:
“the Optris thermal camera needed an emissivity in the range of 0.95 to match temperatures seen
by the thermocouples”.
This statement is absolutely surprising and disappointing. We should remember that Alumina total integrated emissivity is, at low temperature, about 0.64 and that this figure di decreases with increasing temperatures.
Supposing that there was no problem with the thermal contact of the Thermocouple, that is not trivial due to the fact that Alumina
is a good thermal insulator, the figure obtained by MFMP simply means that the material used by them was not pure Alumina.
Even a small fraction of Mg as found in common “Alumina” cements as “Durapot”, can change material emissivity dramatically.
So with that result MFMP has simply demonstrated that:
1) The material they used was NOT the same of the Lugano measure, or
2) Thermocouple positioning and/or thermal contact was not correct.
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.
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.
This also rules out any of the fanciful considerations about “spectral emissivity” of Alumina that do not consider the fact that any IR detector is factory calibrated in order to permit usage of total emissivity values during measure.In conclusion we think that the points raised by MFMP against the Lugano Report lack of any foundation and have no scientific value. ”
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…ano-report-rainer-rander/
Do you have any comment?
JP RenoirAndrea Rossi
October 8, 2016 at 7:45 AM
JP Renoir:
Thank you for the information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.[and later ...]
henrik lundqvist
October 8, 2016 at 10:25 AM
Mr Andrea Rossi,
I like and sustain the comment of JP Renoir.
Keep on making your good work,
HenrikAndrea Rossi
October 8, 2016 at 11:54 AM
Henrik Lundqvist:
I want not to comment about measurements made by an Independent Third Party,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
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-1228409I 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.
-
Quote
Hah, hah! I only note that extra "u."
I think US color will end up winning for simplicity - I find myself dropping u's in a most un-Brit way.
-
I think US color will end up winning for simplicity
Not all Americans are simple you know, some are quite complicated.
-
I thought Rander's writing looked like something Bert Abbing would write on a calm day.
-
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,
BrianAndrea 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.
QuoteDisplay MoreBob Greenyer • 17 hours ago
There will be a more comprehensive paper discussing this imminently available in the next ICMNS journal. Here are some points.1. The Lugano reports authors used data from before the time of the Optris thermal imaging camera existence as basis for their work
2. In the Optris camera manual on page 42 it said to use 0.95 for Alumina, this was ignored by the lugano report authors
3. We used both a B-Type, K-Type thermocouple in contact with our Lugano analogue model reactor and they agreed with the Optris when the Optris was set to 0.954. We used Al2O3 exactly as claimed by the Lugano teams analysis of the Lugano external structure
5. We used the same optris PI160 camera, lens and calibration as the Lugano authors
6. The reactor had same physical dimension and was supported in same way
7. We used a Williamson IR dual-band spot pyrometer ($11,000 tool considered by all in the heat treatment industry to be the only effective and accurate way to measure the temperature of Alumina over a wide range of temperatures since it correctly adjusts emissivity based on years of research at MIT as the Alumina temperature varies) This agreed with our B-Type, K-Type and Optris (when Optris set to 0.95)
8. we used high emissivity paint to verify emissivity values selected (Aramco paint) at 1000ºC as recommended by the Optris manual and not done by the lugano team.
9. Calibrating to 450ºC is simply not adequate when working with Alumina since it massively changes its properties above this.
10. we purchased and utilised the exact same PCE-830 harmonic power analyser to determine the power put in.Some further details are here:
http://www.infinite-energy.com...
We did our research live on camera and the data was streamed, it is unfortunate that you cannot see the reality of our work or its value.
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.
We did not set out with an agenda to either prove no or some excess heat, we just conducted experiments live without any ability to cherry pick or goal seek. The data is the data.
If your group has a proven ability in this area to determine the 'right' emissivity values and you seem to write in a way that suggests you have - we have a built lugano analogue reactor we could arrange with you to test at your facility.
Subsequently, our *GlowStick* experiments appear to show thermal anomalies in line with the 0.95 emmissivity adjusted Lugano report residual excess - though we do not claim that it is actually excess since the nominal is too small to be convincing of a real effect.
Lastly, Parkhomov's latest long term Mass-Flow calorimetry version of his "lugano" fuel style experiments is now in the same ball park of anomalous excess heat as both the 0.95 corrected lugano and our own work.
So I guess everyones work has no scientific value other than the non-live Lugano report writers data that dismisses multiple tranches of advice laid out clearly in the Optris manufacturers product manual. The very same thermal imaging camera on which their estimate of excess heat relies.
-
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:QuoteDisplay Morepatrick kane
October 8, 2016 at 7:02 AM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…ano-report-rainer-rander/
At last it arrived on EW a past due answer to the amateurs that criticized the work of the scientists that made the Lugano Report. What is bizarre is that uneducated guys come out to lecture Prof who worked in CERN, teach Physics in some among the most prestigious universities of Europe. In analogy, we have also drop outs from the colleges that lecture nuclear engineers about how to install a flowmeter and measure a temperature…
Go ahead, Andrea, keep on with your good work for the good of all of us.
PatrickAndrea Rossi
October 8, 2016 at 7:41 AM
Patrick Kane:
Thank you for your insight.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
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
QuoteDisplay Morebrian
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,
BrianAndrea 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.
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
