Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from randombit0

Quote from AlainCo: “but given the accusation on Lugano emissivity”
Come on we have discussed all that in another thread !

Need a review ?

Some of us were awaiting your emissivity integrations, seems like since months.

In the meantime, I suggest that stellar brightness, antenna brightness, and luminosity be researched and well-understood by anyone interested in the arcane depths of knowledge of temperature and emissivity so that the even-more-over-elaborated version of the Lugano emissivity discussion can be best appreciated.

(In the correct thread, of course).

Quote from Keieueue

It's very believable especially when there are downvote machines such as you watching over this forum and others, ready to pounce on whatever's written that doesn't agree with the anti-Rossi narrative

Keieueue: this is a warning. Please refrain from contentless insults. Your contributions have always been very low-signal, high-noise.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Rossibit returns in a burst of brilliance. I'll take the bait because it is fun. R'bit - which referenced forums are democratically controlled?

BTW - Tell the boss that it looks like multiple engine flameouts from the cockpit monitoring system - warning lights and buzzers everywhere - you need to get some of those restarted or we all know the end result.

1) I have no connection with Rossi. On the same basis I can presume YOU have connection to IH.

2) Discussions must be open to everyone otherwise they are useless.

3) I note also a obscure style i your comments. Are you trying to scare someone?

Rossibit - culture of threat and fear only exists on Planet Rossi where it is part of the food supply.
The rest of your trolling speaks for itself.

Cheers!

Quote from randombit0

I think that the real basic working of a forum is to be open to various voices in a democratic way.If you don't agree with somebody why don't you try to answer with effective and sound arguments ?

There is a narrow line between trolling and uninformed (repetitive) democratic opinion. In your case we have with great detail answered every one of your questions over Lugano, showing you where and how you and Levi (whose analysis you follow) are wrong. It may be that you just don't understand this stuff. Fair enough. But you talk as though you do understand it. And you come back weeks after the detailed technical discussion where you comprehensively failed, sounding as though in fact you had won that discussion and we are somehow avoiding it.

This has happened several times over, and I can't blame people here if they get tired of the repetition on other threads. If you have genuine new tech comments go make them on the relevant technical thread where we can refer to the past detailed explanations as needed.

Rossi ends up saying they did try a dummy

Quote

Andrea Rossi
December 15, 2016 at 7:59 AM
Anonymous:
Not during the test with the independent engineer, but we made last week a dummy, just for curiosity: obviously a dummy has COP < 1, using the same instrumentation and methodology. Warm Regards, A.R.

Quote

obviously a dummy has COP < 1

It seems like Rossi's instrumentation on the dummy is wrong as well, or he'd know, for a dummy, COP=1. Exactly.

Rossi's instrumentation is probably not measuring losses.

Well, that would only make this "obviously" if all such losses were on the output side. A big departure for Rossi when he has verified mismeasurement the other way round so many times. Maybe there is something about dummy measurement that reverses his errors?

Quote

Mario Lorenzi
December 15, 2016 at 8:38 AM
Dott. Andrea Rossi and others,
If a flux calorimeter is used even a simple resistance (COP=1 by definition) works as dummy. Agree?
Regards, Mario

Andrea Rossi
December 15, 2016 at 8:51 AM
Mario Lorenzi:
Yes, considered the margin of error and the dissipations outside the heat exchange surface, that are supposed to be not important.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Display More

Keieueue - what is your problem with my dislikes? Aren't there tons of other dislikes related to your posts? You should be fair: why not call me an upvote machine as well? I usually share more likes than dislikes....

Keieueue's account has been suspended for two days. Next time the ban will be permanent.

Quote from THHuxley

for a dummy, COP=1. Exactly.

This is never true. In fact the dummy serves also to measure energy losses of the measuring apparatus. So if one measure COP 0.98 for the dummy knows that is over estimating the input or underestimating the output energy of about 2% . This can be eventually added to measure error.

Quote from THHuxley

this "obviously" if all such losses were on the output side.

Sorry but there is no side. Evaluating losses is the normal procedure.

Very odd, RBZero your English has improved immensely, almost a different person.

This is a terminological issue.

I would define COP as the "true" budget, with errors making an error bound, positive or negative on this.

Where COP is defined as some abstract number ignoring some known errors we get erroneous figures, as has been the case with Rossi's experiments.

Quote

So if one measure COP 0.98 for the dummy knows that is over estimating the input or underestimating the output energy of about 2%

Or both by 1%, or overestimating input by 3% and overestimating output by 1%, etc. Assuming that errors only work one-way is unwise, and therefore (if you adopt this artifical known wrong definition for COP) assuming that COP < 1 for a system with energy in = energy out is unwise.

In fact, making any assumptions about Rossi's apparatus is unwise, the ones that have been properly investigated, like Lugano, have known very clear issues.

Quote from Mary Yugo

Calibration runs are not called "dummy". Sometimes they are labelled blank runs or control runs.

Yes. A "dummy run" is defined as "a test of something in which you practice using or doing it before using or doing it in a real situation." Or: "a trial or test procedure which is carried out in order to see if a plan or process works properly."

I suppose in this context you might call it a dummy run if you turn on the instruments, pumps and so on without inputting any heat, to confirm that the instruments themselves work.

A control run would be to input electrical heat to confirm that the calorimeter registers a balance of zero. Actually, it registers less than zero; or a COP of something like 80%, because with this system there must be a lot of heat unaccounted for.

Quote

I already answered to this issue: the dummy is any sistem with COP < 1

Such an answer would imply, that A. Rossi simply doesn't understand, what the dummy experiment actually is (i.e. the same arrangement but with inert material). He possibly considers every failed experiment as a "dummy". Maybe it's just a matter of missunderstanding of therminology with non-native English speaker: the dummy sometimes also means void result, i.e. the failure.