QuoteAre you familiar with the recent work of Piantelli in which he claims excess power (without any input) for months of around 100 W?
No. That would be impressive. Where was it published, hopefully as a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal? And if not, why not? It would have been a spectacular demo that LENR is real and would be worthy of a path to a Nobel prize and untold riches. Why is it languishing in obscurity?
Quote from Randombit0Display More
O Dear Paradigmoia,
Thank you very much for the link to the "Infinite Energy" page. I see from that page that MFMP used the value of a generic "CERAMIC" emissivity as a first guess, tacking it from the manual of the Optris PI camera. This is quite wrong. CERAMIC means a vast number of materials so that number could be referred to a generic ceramic not to pure Alumina.
In fact fro the table of the book IR-Basics of Optris (not the manual of the camera)we see that the tipical Total emissivity of alluminium oxide is extremely low, with reported values (0.2; 0.3; 0.46; 0.16) that are even lower then the actual values used by the Lugano group.
Note also that those single values do not take in account the variation of emissivity with temperature.
Because this dependancy is important the Lugano group correctly found a measurement in literature and referred to that.
Without referring to previous work any measure or scientific activity should start from scratch, and we would have no progress.
It is so quite natural and not, certainly a scandal, to refer to literature from NASA for the emissivity of Allumina on Inconel.
Measures have value independently from the year on which they have been made.
So what's the problem ? Are you in trouble because your ideas are falsified by NASA ?
And about the iterative method: This is quite a normal graphical method to solve an equation, is called Fixed Point Iteration Method.
Try to search it with Google.
The ref in the Lugano paper show that this method is applied also in the thermography field.
So my dear Paradigmoia what's the problem ? The more we study this topic the more we see that Lugano procedure was correct.
Sorry if this hurts you.
I know of no-one competent in the matter who has studied Lugano with the related literature and agreed with you/Levi rather than GSVIT/BH//TC/MFMP/Paradigmnoia. No honest person of even moderate technical competence could fail to see the Lugano error and its severe consequences, given how carefully it has now been pointed out.
Your comments here are trolling, pure and simple. I note that you ignore the many clear and detailed rebuttals of your oft-stated view. Whether you personally are incompetent or dishonest is not the point. Either way, your unpleasant comments here are false. I don't mind ordinary trolls. Trolls pretending technical discussion: that I don't like.
The trouble with the measurements is that they just did not do a control run at temperature and did not check with a thermocouple.
The other problem is that the device was just in open air (check pictures) with an air vent over the device. In a month run one would expect that however white the ceramic was at the beginning it would likely change due to dust, material migration and so on.
The bottom line is don't trust tests that are not controlled both before and after the testing.
@oldguy,
Unfortunately, they did have a thermocouple present. They simply did not bother to test the hot reactor to see if it was even close to the IR reading in the active part of the test, notwithstanding the variance between ridge and valley.
"We also found that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe placed on the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct temperature measurement with the required precision impossible." - page 7
Interesting also that the reactor could be held stable at an external temperature above the internal thermocouple operating range. Even more interesting that there was an internal thermocouple used to control temperature, but it apparently gives no indication of the temperature it is set to hold.
The bottom line is don't trust tests that are not controlled both before and after the testing.
Indeed — there was no calibration run through the operating temperature range. I never tire from hearing this general point repeated whenever the Lugano test is brought up. Another bottom line (apparent on the day the report was released): don't trust a byzantine calculation of radiative power using a fourth-degree polynomial (the Stefan–Boltzmann law) without a good cross check (e.g., several thermocouples).
These defects were apparent from day 1. I wish people would let the Lugano test go into the drawer of interesting results that need to be improved upon.
Quote: “Are you familiar with the recent work of Piantelli in which he claims excess power (without any input) for months of around 100 W?”
No. That would be impressive. Where was it published, hopefully as a peer reviewed paper in a reputable…
Another thumbs up from your number 1 fan Mary. That is another cracking comment. A real wig drencher. 
Indeed — there was no calibration run through the operating temperature range. I never tire from hearing this general point repeated whenever the Lugano test is brought up. Another bottom line (apparent on the day the report was released): don't trust a byzantine calculation of radiative power using a fourth-degree polynomial (the Stefan–Boltzmann law) without a good cross check (e.g., several thermocouples).
So for you to accept a critique as true, it doesn't need to be validated by a person with professional and practical knowledge? We have till this day no validation, no one here takes the time to seek advice from professionals. The basis of the critique at this moment is some copying-and-pasting of quotes out of manuels without understanding the practical context.
So for you to accept a critique as true, it doesn't need to be validated by a person with professional and practical knowledge?
You don't need an expert to tell you that this is true. Read the report--the authors tell you they didn't do a calibration over the full range of input powers and temperatures.
So for you to accept a critique as true, it doesn't need to be validated by a person with professional and practical knowledge? We have till this day no validation, no one here takes the time to seek advice from professionals. The basis of the critique at this moment is some copying-and-pasting of quotes out of manuels without understanding the practical context.
I do think it matters if an expert disagrees with non-experts in borderline cases. In such cases I'm willing to keep an open mind, very alive to the possibility that there's something I don't know. In this specific case, I don't think the defects that were mentioned feel like borderline cases (failure to calibrate in the operating temperature range of the live device, and use of a mathematical equation with large room for error and no cross checks). To me these feel like obvious defects. These two problems are ones I personally happened to spot right away and then mention in an email to Vortex once I had a moment to read the report around the time it was released. The spectral/total emissivity flaw sounds like a significant and fatal one as well, although it does not quite fall into the same category of obvious mistake, since you need to really familiarize yourself with the relevant science to get a sense of whether TC/MFMP/Paradigmnoia/etc. are right or randombit0 is right (I have not bothered to really acquaint myself with this particular question and just follow it at a high level). The quoting from manuals is interesting, but it's not what I'm primarily talking about in this specific instance. I have in mind basic steps that must be taken in an experiment of this sort to rule out other possibilities, basic enough that they are obvious to non-experts.
The authors themselves were aware that they were doing some things that would later be open to criticism and take a moment to rationalize both methodological problems in the Lugano report itself: they were worried about burning out the reactor by running it through the operating temperature range during the calibration; and I recall there being something about not being able to attach thermocouples to the exterior (I don't recall exactly what was said here). But awareness of methodological problems does not make the results more sound.
QuoteWe have till this day no validation, no one here takes the time to seek advice from professionals.
None of the Lugano report authors, to my knowledge, had any expert knowledge in the area of thermography.
More broadly, as academics working in experimental science or engineering, only some of them qualify. Levi: possibly, TC: possibly.
Again more broadly, as having a science background that would allow them to absorb the relevant material both levi and Tc qualify, but clearly one or other of them is not using that background properly.
I'd take Paradigmnoia's expertise and enquiring mind over any of those credentialled Swedes, or Levi, any day. And if you can only judge quality of work by letters after a name I fear you will make many mistakes!
Interestingly Mats said 4 (approximately, my memory is hazy) months ago he would seek resolution of this matter from independent professionals but since then has gone very silent on the topic. Mats is on e-mail record as saying in effect that on a balance of utility measure he thinks a PR campaign in favour of Rossi is justified regardless of evidence, since suppressing Rossi's invention of real has massive significance, whereas encouraging it if not real does not matter.
I don't agree with several links in that chain of reasoning but it would easily motivate Mats to suppress (or rationalise away) any expert views he had obtained that were in favour of TC/BH/MFMP/Paradigmnoia.
Also worth noting that we do not have TC here to cross-examine on this matter due to Mats and Sifferkoll.
None of the Lugano report authors, to my knowledge, had any expert knowledge in the area of thermography.
That is indeed a frequent problem. As Jed said, would it be taken seriously if HVAC or furnace experts have analysed E-cat, if Caltech had asked to chemist and not to physicist to replicate F&P.
The competence required is not in the theory, in the assumed domain of the phenomenon, but in the effective measurement setup.
People who replicated F&P correctly were chemist, or lab engineers, and physicist even when trained by Heinz Gerischer himself, took twice the time to do the job, or failed miserably like most.
People can learn however, but when you feel superior you don't learn.
An engineer or a tinkerer can learn lab procedures, painfully, with mistakes and ridicule, but some physicist cannot. they will blame the materials, the chemists, the strirring, the recombination, and not their own errors.
It is not the pedigree of the researcher that makes for good and honest results (although it improves the probability of good results). It is the proper use of standard methods, materials, checks, and protocols. The problem is that the researchers did not follow the standard methods.
I don't agree with several links in that chain of reasoning but it would easily motivate Mats to suppress (or rationalise away) any expert views he had obtained that were in favour of TC/BH/MFMP/Paradigmnoia.
That is a very unfair slur on Mats Lewan who while he may have become too involved to be totally objective, is a deeply and sincerely honest man I am proud to regard as a friend.
Why is it a slur? I do find it surprising that we have not one such view, after Mats certainly said he would seek them? Perhaps Mats has commented on ECW - I would not know unless it was relayed here...
Given the benefit/cost balance stated by Mats below you don't think a certain care for PR, and silence about debatable but negative-seeming information, is conscionable? Mats makes his position pretty clear. I don't imagine he would ever directly lie, but equally he'd feel honour-bound to put the best spin on matters unless his views have now changed.
Quote from Mats e-mailDisplay More
And it doesn’t seem to me that it has ever occurred to you
that, how honest and convinced you may be, if the E-Cat is real and the
game really is so dirty, you will end up, maybe un-willingly, having
supported these people. Personally I would find it hard to forgive
myself for that – after all we’re talking about the future of this
planet.
On the other
hand, if I’m wrong about all this, very few people will suffer for
real, if anyone. Me and a few others will be somewhat embarrassed. And
yet not, since I will think that what I did was the right thing under
the circumstances.
EDIT
For example, I'd expect Mats willingness to go to the work of pushing for definitive independent professional views on Lugano and its critics to be conditioned by what he expected the result to be. If he reckoned it would be negative do you really think he would exert as much effort as if he expected a positive?
More generally, I think some people are too harsh on all the others these cases. Mats main error is perhaps that he believes honest people, not giving enough weight to the probability that they can be honestly self-deceiving. Self-deceit is a universal human phenomena though we all like to think ourselves immune. It is a wise person indeed who accurately gauges their own unconscious bias. And Mats, I judge, is honest, not gauging his own, or deliberately biased now, having been convinced at one time, and following the logical consequences of his views above.
Science is no way immune to this. But, because it is about hard fact, it can seem as though judgments are less prone to bias than is really the case.
@THH - As I have said many times in this place and elsewhere, all those involved in writing up the Lugano report decided some time ago not to respond to any comments on their work, whether good or bad. That's it. You can puff and pant and imply Mats may be surpressing information all you like (which is the slur I was referring to) but the simple truth is that he hasn't got any more info than you or me, and that position is very unlikely to change unless hell freezes over. Which last, you must admit, would be hard to prove.
QuoteYou can puff and pant and imply Mats may be surpressing information all you like (which is the slur I was referring to) but the simple truth is that he hasn't got any more info than you or me, and that position is very unlikely to change unless hell freezes over.
So you are saying his statement that he was going to find independent opinion on the report + critiques was untrue?
Your comments here are trolling, pure and simple.
To be qualified as a Troll by one of the most active trolls is a compliment ! But no, thanks, I'm already engaged!
And how can you be sure that none of the Lugano team was expert in Thermography ?
Did any of you know that one member of the team is expert in criminal scientific investigation and has quite a good knowledge of chemistry, physics and almost any kind of laboratory technique ?
A very nice guy to talk at indeed !
And also the paper was seen and reviewed by colleagues of the Authors before the publication.
And still you affirm that NONE of those Academics was sufficiently expert!
But I see also that you want to discard any opinion of experts and qualified people !
Are you a member of the Flat Earth Society ? http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php</a> <br>
I discard baloney no matter who makes it, or what their qualifications might be.
Reality is stronger than badges and paper certificates and the flapping of gums and keyboard keys.
If everything is so true as stated by Randombit0/AR, why in hell there is no single piece of evidence of a working Ecat plant (anybody knows of one, that has been sold to a customer? Or does Eng48 work on / has completed installations somewhere on this (Rossi)-planet?) other than the one at Doral place which didn't seem to produce excess heat after all we can assume?
Rossi states he's has reached Sigma 4 with his Quax, which is after the common understanding of this concept a probability of more than 99%, that this thing works. How in hell it can be, that there is no sign at all,that his earthshaking technology is out there? Why is is not being leaked by anybody who is working with him on this invention of the century? He always states that he (he often uses "we", but who is we?) is working hard to get the certification and setup of robotized lines somewhere?... he must be doing this on his own more or less completely which is more than questionable, otherwise it is not understandable that no one leaks anything. Even Apple is not able to keep all secrets for new devices before a launch event...), so why should he be capable if he has tons of people who are in R&D, logistics, manufacturing...I seriously doubt, that his partner is ABB, otherwise we would have known for long time... Every serious person, engineer, scientist, who looks in this entire soap opera unbiased must realize, that this (Ecat plants, that are working and have been sold, Quaxx)is nothing else than a huge fake - my opinion. I do believe in LENR, but not in the "Rossi-Effekt", if this one drives his mysterious plants.
Silvio Caggia | 23 hours ago
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You are navigating toward the 5 sigma…
Which sigma you reached till now?
3? 4? 4.5?
Andrea Rossi | 18 hours ago
Silvio Caggia:
4
Warm Regards
A.R.
So you are saying his statement that he was going to find independent opinion on the report + critiques was untrue?
Now who is trolling- smiley face or not? Mats went to the source as I did, and got a dusty answer. As I did.
