Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Paradigmnoia:


    As always, thanks for your terrier-like pursuit of technical data. I was not aware of that image: you are right, it is revealing.


    In the interests of accuracy I'm going to disagree with part of what you say, though not the overall conclusion.


    If that picture is genuinely one of the December test then I think we can definitively answer Jed's point about not knowing anything wrong with that test, and even say what the issue was.


    Those, like Alan, who believe Rossi's stuff sometimes work might perhaps consider that Rossi's innacuracy in doing experiments is so high that he could never possibly know himself the difference between working and not working. There is juts no evidence out there his stuff is more than parlour tricks of a specifically scientific variety.


    The Ferrara tests where document as two significant test runs: December and March. They are different (in lots of ways). Like any magician, Rossi has a habit of ringing the changes.


    In the December test run the report says:



    So, from the report: the entire calculation comes from the (integrated power) WH measurement from the PCE-830. This is then divided by 96 (the test time in hours) to get the inferred power consumption.


    They know power was output at the same rate throughout the experiment because the output was shown there the whole time from the 1s per frame time lapse photography.


    This test has TCs for temperature so I'm not inclined to think there are big errors on the output side.


    You might think that because (to get a constant output) a constant input is needed, and anyway if not constant the total energy in vs total energy out is all that matters, this instrumentation is pretty good. That, I'm sure, is what Jed thought.


    The problem is that those checking this experiment were not experts in AC power measurement - or if they were trusted Rossi to have a vaguely sane setup.


    The photo shows Rossi's setup to be not vaguely sane. The negative PFSigma and PWSigma show that at the time this photo was taken the power was drawn from two phases with reversed clamps (it would not be reasonable for the control box in reality to source power back into the mains supply).


    The positive WH indication shows that for some of the test power must go through a phase with a correct polarity clamp.


    The report notes that the control box switches power in some proprietary (= don't ask questions about it) way, but that the total power remains the same. That may be true, but because of the partly reversed clamps that photo is absolute proof that the WH indication (the only one used by the experiment checkers) will read lower than expected.


    So we have positively identified a Rossi-esque false positive for this (December Ferrara) experiment.


    Some details (a little speculative, but I think the logic is solid):


    No-one needs to change the clamps. In the photo phase 31 has a maximum real power of < 38W (however measured + or -). Phases 12 & 23 have a negative real power (both with reversed clamps) because the total negative power can only be obtained at the stated total negative PF if both phases contribute. Note that the average power-weighted PF over all phases is -0.48, but the max (absolute value) PF for any phase is -0.52, which means both of the high actual power PFs must be close to -0.5, and therefore also the 31 phase PF must be positive (clamp the correct way round).


    The control box can deliver a constant large power with a measured much lower WH energy, by switching between power through 12 & 23 (as here) and power through 31. All that is needed to get the stated 360W average is for switching to have the correct duty cycle to make the positive 31 contribution slightly more than the negative 12 & 32. Note that the voltages are weird: this is not mains line voltage: I guess measurements were done on the black box output.


    Speculative notes on the March Test


    The March test was different in quite a number of ways, and (typically for Rossi) exhibited a much lower COP. My guess (very speculative) is that the absent testers (only Levi was present) noticed some anomalies in the power measurements, or at least raised questions of a possible loophole. Therefore it was decided to redo the test closing those loopholes. (Wisely, given we have positive evidence of such an error). From the March test part of the Ferrara report (linked above):


    The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements themselves.


    Which opens the possibility that the voltage measurement and current measurements in the December test were from different sides of the control box? They clearly did not trust the readings.


    What is notable is the COPs obtained:


    December:

    Pout = 2034, Pin = 360, COP=5.6

    Note that a Pin of 2034 would lead to COP=1, and this is plausible given the QSigma of 1.96kVAR (we cannot trust power calculation from phases and therefore also cannot trust the stated PF).


    March:

    Weird switched system, with duty cycle of 35%.

    COP=2.9


    Interesting that if the system were not switched the COP would be 1. Not enough data on this system however to be clear what is the false positive mechanism. Notice however that for these tests, where there was at least some level of external supervision, Rossi completely changed his setup - moving to a more complex system - more difficult to analyse - but with lower performance, for his repeat test. That is very suspicious!


    THH

  • Why not give yourself a break and stop going over this past history in such detail - I think we all know that Rossi has embellished the truth of his measurements, continues to do it to this day with his most recent demo (I still maintain he used either a metal halide or mercury vapour lamp to generate his stable 'ballerina' and fiddled the spectroscopy to conceal their distinct spectra). He's about smoke and mirrors to entertain his small devoted following, which in my book is not really doing anything wrong if his intentions at the end of the day are to bring an effective cold fusion reactor to market and needs the continued funding to do so. He's just a small shark in a sea of Great White capitalist sharks all intent on making billions out of cold fusion judging by the intense spate of activity at the US patent office.

  • I am of the opinion ( bolstered by recent backstage gossip) that there is a managed news event about LENR on its way that is designed to be a 'big story'. I have ideas about who will be behind it, I'm sure that guessing that wouldn't be hard anyway, but I have very little idea about its content.

  • And that last patent on preventing reverse engineeriing by IH is just patently ridiculous. Are they having a bout of group paranoia, desperately clinging on to the IP they have indiscriminately acquired from independent sources from around the World? Maybe they think Rossi is going to reappear like in a nightmare and steal all their secrets - or just suddenly empty all their bank accounts making all their investors run for the hills. Strange times we live in is alI I can say with anti-capitalists and Extinction Rebellion now beginning to turn the Tory and Republican (Fascist) tide.

  • THHuxleynew ,

    The PCE photo came with 2 others, all of which I had not seen before, and definitely match the December Test, right down to the gloves next to the metal case and a red probe or pen in the same place on the table. The watch is in the same place. It was in a short German summary of the test.


    The reactor at that time had the resistors wired in series, so there are only two power supply leads going to it. For there to be three wires connected to the PCE830, they must have connected to the wall outlet side of the controller. The PCE830 is set in the 3 phase,3 wire mode (indicated in the lower LH corner of the screen), which means 3 phases with no neutral wire. What I am wondering is if the meter was connected to single phase wiring with a neutral, while in the 3 phase 3 wire mode. Of course there seems to be no images of meters being connected that way on the web.


    Perhaps this is the secret proof of an ecat making direct electricity. 35% time on pushing energy in, then gets hot and sends it all back for 65% of the time. But the damn controller hates it and gets very hot.

  • I am of the opinion ( bolstered by recent backstage gossip) that there is a managed news event about LENR on its way that is designed to be a 'big story'. I have ideas about who will be behind it, I'm sure that guessing that wouldn't be hard anyway, but I have very little idea about its content.

    Then why not beat that 'managed news event' to the punch by inviting whomever would want to show up to your LENR demonstration lab with a geiger counter and cameras?


  • As with many things to do with Rossi, the way that he uses test equipment outside its normal domain of applicability continues to amaze.


    I can't make any sense of what the input could have been. All I can think is that the voltage probes are connected to a two-phase supply and ground, with a high ground current and approx 1 ohm resistance between ground and neutral. That would sort of make sense although be horribly unsafe. Alternately, the voltage probes are just not connected directly to inputs voltages, but to some other voltage. There seems to have been no oversight of the AC measurements, and we know Rossi himself cannot do them from the classic and 100% wrong "AC is positive and negative so polarity does not matter" comment.


    Providing the voltage and current probes are correctly connected it does not matter whether 2 or 3 phase. The reverse clamp issue remains a deal breaker. However if voltage and current clamps are incorrectly connected then nothing can be known about the input power. Which leads to the same conclusion.


    Why not give yourself a break and stop going over this past history in such detail - I think we all know that Rossi has embellished the truth of his measurements, continues to do it to this day with his most recent demo (I still maintain he used either a metal halide or mercury vapour lamp to generate his stable 'ballerina' and fiddled the spectroscopy to conceal their distinct spectra). He's about smoke and mirrors to entertain his small devoted following, which in my book is not really doing anything wrong if his intentions at the end of the day are to bring an effective cold fusion reactor to market and needs the continued funding to do so. He's just a small shark in a sea of Great White capitalist sharks all intent on making billions out of cold fusion judging by the intense spate of activity at the US patent office.


    I'd be sympathetic with this, except you have an implicit assumption - that Rossi's shows have something to do with working LENR and therefore Rossi's work could result in commercial LENR - that has no supporting evidence.


    We know Rossi was very good at persuading a selected audience he had working LENR. We also know how he did this. None of that speks to his actually having working LENR.


    If Alan mentions patents - well the whole LENR patent thing is smoke and mirrors. If anyone gets working LENR there might be some utility in these "if we have LENR we could do it like this" patents. None of them allow someone skilled in the art to make even 1W of excess power from nuclear reactions.


    Should IH (if Alan is hinting this) announce it has properly tested working LENR I will be the first to be highly interested - though I'd treat any such announcement on its merits and note that IH will (properly) be talking up possibilities, and possibilities do not imply known working LENR.


    I see no connection with Rossi.

  • I am of the opinion ( bolstered by recent backstage gossip) that there is a managed news event about LENR on its way that is designed to be a 'big story'. I have ideas about who will be behind it, I'm sure that guessing that wouldn't be hard anyway, but I have very little idea about its content.


    Or, if you think this is Rossi-inspired PR then I'm also interested in it, but not in a way that relates to any interest in LENR. Rossi PR remains fascinating, but not in a good way.

  • Position . . . as in the Kama Sutra index number? That seems inappropriate, or beyond the scope of the discussion.

    And yet, given the past sexual innuendos posted by that individual, it's not outside the boundaries that he has stepped over in the past. I would suggest that, yet again, the Clarifier isn't very good at clarifying and owes you a Clarification. But of course, the way he sees it, I owe HIM a clarification even though his question has been asked & answered dozens of times prior to him even asking it.

  • Taking a snapshot of the system at around 35 minutes
    https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…rossi-20110114-test2-png/

    5633-rossi-20110114-test2-png


    The orange curve in your graph shows that the water has remained at boiling temperature for less than 20 minutes. The UniBo report (1) says "In [Test 2] the power measured was 12686 +/- 211 W for about 40 min", ie it reports a value which is twice the real duration of boiling conditions. You don't need anything else to conclude that that test was faked.


    In addition, the available images show that the fake probe which was inserted at the top of the Ecat, instead of the missing "HP474AC probe" mentioned in the report, was never removed during this 20 minutes period.


    Finally, within days from the demo, Levi's stated (2): "we spent two weeks of the water that flowing through the system to be certain of our calibration", then he added: "After this calibration period I have checked that the pump was not touched and when we brought it here for the experiment it was giving the same quantity of water during all the experiment." If true, it means that he had calibrated the pump for delivering a flow (17.6 L/h), which was almost 50% greater than its nominal maximum capacity (12 L/h). Do you really think it was a wise choice for a pump that should have cooled an alleged nuclear reactor? Is it a credible statement? No, of course.


    Nothing is credible in that demo and in that report. The same applies to all other reports issued by the same people.


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf

    (2) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf

  • Quote

    He's [Rossi] just a small shark in a sea of Great White capitalist sharks all intent on making billions out of cold fusion judging by the intense spate of activity at the US patent office.

    Rossi is no shark. He's more of a minnow or a guppy. As for all those capitalist sharks, they have yet to produce a single example of a working LENR reactor which is accepted by mainline scientists. They can't even get one properly tested independently by a well known testing agency. Some sharks!

  • Zatelepin

    But the most important range from 10^8 until 10^12, about we talk in this auto-oscillating mode, this range isn’t covered by Rossi through any measuring devices"

    If Zatelepin means Hertz this range is way too low..


    Even if it means MHz...the range is low.. Ev equivalent = 0.4 EV- 4Kev

  • I don't think a minnow or a guppy would have been able to bite such a big chunk out of the Great White IH, do you? Looking forward to this mysterious 'announcement'. If a working viable cold fusion reactor is now a reality (and I can't see why not since many groups are now reporting a consistent 2.5W per gram of transition-metal mix -deuterium-lithium-hydrogen fuel mix - what's the hold up?) they should be mass-produced as quickly as possible, funds diverted from all other fusion projects like ITER etc into this. Well we can always dream....