Celani and his replicators have consistently avoided doing the simplest possible thing to enhance their claimed effect if there is one. They refuse to use MULTIPLE WIRES (say maybe 10, for example), warmed by the same heater. That would greatly improve the signal noise ratio (so-called "COP") if there is a signal at all, which I doubt very much. But there is no conceivable possible reason for not performing that simple improvement other than incompetence.
-
-
That would greatly improve the signal noise ratio (so-called "COP")
So you now conflate 'input power' with 'noise'? That's even stupider than when you mixed up 'COP' with 'Q-factor'.
-
So you now conflate 'input power' with 'noise'? That's even stupider than when you mixed up 'COP' with 'Q-factor'.
Zeus46, that was uncalled-for
(1) It is strictly speaking an analogy, but an accurate one, to view error+ input power as noise and excess power as signal when doing calorimetry. It makes perfect sense and I have loosely used the same language myself.
(2) While conflating COP and Q as in second order resonance would be a grievous error, the more likely terminology is Q as in fusion energy factor where Q = COP-1. Depending on context MY may or may not have been getting this wrong.
(3) Insulting people when you think they have made a mistake is very unhelpful and shows only that you do not wish to contribute to establishing truth.
-
Cmon Huxley, you know you're talking nonsense here. Why defend the indefensible?
He's talking about the "signal-noise ratio" - this has a rigorous definition, and most people understand it.
A much, much better analogy for whatever Yugo was waffling on about would be "COP" which has an incredibly similar meaning, in a highly related field, but for some reason Yugo doesn't like this usage, so much so that he tries to shoehorn in "signal-noise" ratio instead... Possibly to give the appearance of being more knowledgeable about such things than he really is. And I guarantee he's never heard of 'fusion energy factor', so give it a rest.
to view error+ input power as noise and excess power as signal when doing calorimetry. It makes perfect sense and I have loosely used the same language myself.
Not in front of anyone whose education you are responsible for, I hope. It makes way more sense to think of the 'noise' as fluctuations, or perhaps measurement errors of the input power. But then seeing this supposed "noise" isn't amplified by the system being looked at, it's just a damn horrible analogy that has no place anywhere - Not even in parlour-game arguments put forward by people who should know far better.
Depending on context MY may or may not have been getting this wrong.
Here's the context: "Compare the claimed net ("excess") power in kW and the Q factor ("COP")." Again, this formulation just sounds odd to anyone with any formal training in engineering. I've pointed this out before, but it's a mistake he stubbornly keeps on making.
Insulting people when you think they have made a mistake is very unhelpful...
Although repeatedly making the same mistake - after someone has helpfully pointed out to you - is pretty stupid, in my book.
...and shows only that you do not wish to contribute to establishing truth.
What if the truth is, that a person really is stupid?
-
He's talking about the "signal-noise ratio" - this has a rigorous definition, and most people understand it.
A much, much better analogy for whatever Yugo was waffling on about would be "COP" which has an incredibly similar meaning, in a highly related field,
I'm afraid mathematicians, engineers, etc, use SNR loosely in conversation (at least I do - maybe I'm weird). It makes sense and describes an important concept especially in calorimetry. And you don't need much imagination to understand what it means even with no background.
Whereas COP is weird and does not capture the concept at all, since COP=1 has zero signal to noise ratio. Whereas fusion Q is also useful (and similar to SNR) COP is not helpful
However, if you think COP and SNR are so similar, it would lead to marginal results being seen as significant.
My one beef with this usage is that in calorimetry it is more helpful to view SNR as excess power/total max error bound. The total max error bound is related to the input power in a rather complex way. If the calibration is imperfect or controls imperfect - as is often the case in amateur experiments - you tend to get errors proportionate to input power and these are sometimes the main noise source.
-
Whereas COP is weird and does not capture the concept at all, since COP=1 has zero signal to noise ratio
WTF? The signal-noise ratio analogy falls down on so many levels I almost can't be bothered to write them out. Here's it put simply:
COP = (A+B)/B
SNR = A/B .....(edit: 'noise'/A would probably have been a better way to put this).
I'm afraid mathematicians, engineers, etc, use SNR loosely in conversation
Yeah, it's a widely used metaphor, for example: "THH's signal to noise ratio has decreased this afternoon". But it's really daft to apply this type of woolly metaphorical usage to real engineering situations - because you'll just end up confusing some poor bugger like Mary.
It makes sense and describes an important concept especially in calorimetry.... .....Whereas COP is weird and does not capture the concept at all,
OK, I could do with some amusement... Lets hear what this "important concept in calorimetry" is?!
And please explain how this "important concept in calorimetry" is more important than measuring (and comparing) the input vs output powers.
-
You might as well be responding to a wall. Zeus focuses on minutiae (and at most of those, he's also wrong) and he favors insults and ad hom responses because he can not make a case either for Rossi or for LENR in any way that someone with a double-digit IQ can not refute. His fascination with his attempts at doxing is based on the same faults.
-
Display More
WTF? The signal-noise ratio analogy falls down on so many levels I almost can't be bothered to write them out. Here's it put simply:
COP = (A+B)/B
SNR = A/B
Yeah, it's a widely used metaphor, for example: "THH's signal to noise ratio has decreased this afternoon". But it's really daft to apply this type of woolly metaphorical usage to a real engineering situations - because you'll just end up confusing some poor bugger like Mary.
OK, I could do with some amusement... Lets hear what this "important concept in calorimetry" is?!
And please explain how this "important concept in calorimetry" is more important than measuring (and comparing) the input vs output powers.
So you are agreeing with me that COP = (A+B)/B is a very unhelpful measure?
SNR is a good analogy for either ratio of excess heat (signal) to total error (noise)
or the ratio of excess heat (signal) to total poer in (noise)
The latter seems less intuitive until you realise that in calorimetry a lot of the errors are proportional to total power in, which in LENR experiments tends to be a lot larger than the excess heat. MY would say that is weird, and excess heat would be more easily detected with much smaller power in and better insulation - and hence by the second measure a higher SNR. MFMP agree - I remember they were doing a highly insulated Ni/LiAlH test which should - if the marginal excess results they were seeing were an LENR signal, deliver definite results by increasing this SNR by the amount that the input power needed was decreased.
I'm not sure what happened about that sensible experiment. Anyone find out? It should be able to show the apparent excess heat marginal indications either false or true. I'd guess false since we have not heard about it.
The important concepts in calorimetry are all about how to understand and bound errors. Measuring input with a power meter has nothing to do with that.
-
So you are agreeing with me that COP = (A+B)/B is a very unhelpful measure?
Not that I'm aware of.
Anyway... A picture saves a thousand brain cells, or something...
-
SNR is a good analogy for either ratio of excess heat (signal) to total error (noise)
or the ratio of excess heat (signal) to total poer in (noise)
The latter seems less intuitive until you realise that in calorimetry a lot of the errors are proportional to total power in,I drew that sketch before reading your answer above, so please disregard the THH reference, as it doesn't quite capture the nuance of your second line above.
Also, I agree with your first line above, but I'd love to see a proper reference, or deductive reasoning, for your final claim that "in calorimetry a lot of the errors are proportional to total power in". In fact, I could maybe argue the opposite case - based on, well, the signal to noise ratio*...
His fascination with his attempts at doxing is based on the same faults.
If you didn't make hilarious claims, such as being "a world-class expert in calorimetry", then I wouldn't have to keep referring to it.
* i.e. the 'rest of the world' signal to noise ratio...
If you want to pursue the suggestion in your link which I removed, perhaps you can discuss it at another venue that is friendly towards doxxing? Vortex couldn't care less if someone doxxes someone else, for example. Eric
-
The latter seems less intuitive until you realise that in calorimetry a lot of the errors are proportional to total power in, which in LENR experiments tends to be a lot larger than the excess heat.
That is untrue. With electrochemical cold fusion, input power is usually simple direct current, which is easy to measure with precision. There is little noise in it. Just a little from bubbles, which are predictable and never exceeds a certain low level. (Because the size and number of bubbles does not vary much, as you can actually see, if the cathode is visible.)
With the Dardik "superwave" technique or glow discharge, input power can be noisy and more difficult to measure.
Noise is not usually a function of input power. It can increase with sporadic anomalous output power. It is also not a function of the ratio of input to anomalous output power.
-
-
That is untrue. With electrochemical cold fusion, input power is usually simple direct current, which is easy to measure with precision. There is little noise in it. Just a little from bubbles, which are predictable and never exceeds a certain low level. (Because the size and number of bubbles does not vary much, as you can actually see, if the cathode is visible.)
With the Dardik "superwave" technique or glow discharge, input power can be noisy and more difficult to measure.
Noise is not usually a function of input power. It can increase with sporadic anomalous output power. It is also not a function of the ratio of input to anomalous output power.
Jed: the usage here of noise is as any calorimetric error. For example:
Variations between control and active leading to calibration errors. Such errors will be proportional to the input power.
Variations in active setup due to changes in temperature distribution from calibration (a special case of the above). Again proportional to the input power.
Power measurement errors. These deliver a heat balance error proportional to the input power, since power measurement usually has dominant proportional component.
DeltaT measurement errors. These deliver a heat balance proportional to the input power if the measurement error is dominated by proportionate rather than absolute component.
Not all the errors are proportional to input power but a good many are.
-
I do not think so. In my opinion, both are making errors in calorimetry, and they have not observed excess heat.
Both, Celani and Parkhomov are scientist working for institutions with high reputation.
On what is based you opinion ?
The more I observe this strange LENR world the more I see many "mythomaniacs" that simply want to gain some popularity attacking professional scientist without even having some basic knowledge of science.
-
Both, Celani and Parkhomov are scientist working for institutions with high reputation.
On what is based you opinion ?
The more I observe this strange LENR world the more I see many "mythomaniacs" that simply want to gain some popularity attacking professional scientist without even having some basic knowledge of science.
Ele, Jed will answer to Celani, whose work he is more familiar with.
Parkhomov's work is damned by his reports, which have been much discussed here. There was also eye-witness testimony that in the first interesting phase-change calorimetry (boil-off) there were splashes that would invalidate the results.
-
MFMP are releasing ash analysis of fuel from the latest series of Parkhomov experiments. It might be wise to wait until you have more reasons to dismiss his work.
-
It was about 8 years ago that he said "In Mercato Veritas". So far it has been "in null mercato".
The marketplace is a cesspool of lies, deceit, deception, duplicity, double-dealing, fraud, cheating, trickery, and chicanery. From, what I have seen, none of the major movers in the LENR community has what it takes to gain purchase in such an environment. In the main, they are basically good people. IH and their agents have shown the proper character to succeed in the disgusting and corrupt environment but for all intents and purposes these decisionmakers do not show the exceptional intelligence required for success in the market.
Regarding morality, we are referring to the ethical glue that binds the best parts of society together. Morality deals with our sense of fairness and our sense of responsibility to others. Implicit in morality is the idea that there are right ways...and, by contrast, wrong ways...to act.
But regarding markets, we are referring to the myriad institutional structures human beings have established to facilitate commerce, a process of the distribution of wealth in society. For purposes of this description, a market is any structure under which commerce takes place, whatever it may be. In my view, these structures begin as neither moral nor immoral. They are as indifferent as water. Markets are meant simply to be vehicles for finding the most efficient way to balance supply and demand.
We struggle to make the market as free as possible, the less encumbered by regulation, and the more efficient it should be. This struggle includes removing the constraints of morality on the processes of wealth creation. From the social standpoint, unfettered markets can lead to situations most of us would consider immoral: vast populations of have-nots, a ruined environment where people are crushed under the wheels of commerce, plutocracies and other innumerable dystopian scenarios.
The question then becomes, “Are market values and social values congruent?” And, if not, how can we bring them closer together? How can we influence markets so that they can help us build the kind of world we believe we should have?
The misalignment between markets and morality...often a proxy for arguments about the public good versus individual rights...has engaged thinkers since the birth of commerce. Unfettered capitalism’s most rabid opponents and the market makers’ most fervent supporters have given us tracts, books, broadsheets, movies, tweets and more in an attempt to persuade us of their specific points of view.
At its heart, the discussion of markets and how we should function in them is a discussion about capitalism and morality itself. Specifically, where does Rossi stand in all this turmoil?
My own view of capitalism is this: No other system has brought so much to so many in so short a time. Is it perfect? No. But we must learn to conform to its reality. We must embrace the market as it exists. Learning hard lessons takes time, Rossi has spent many years learning the ropes of commerce, he has been subject to it forces and its teachings, he has gone to the school of hard knocks, and now after all these many years, he has learned to survive within the clutches of the marketplace. He is rounding into proper shape to succeed in the marketplace. The market has beaten any semblance of morality out of Rossi, so much so, that he is now poised on the proper expressway to commercial success not only prepared for today's challenges but also for anything that can face him in the future. Rossi, a man among whimpering children, will stride like a giant among the broken and scattered ruins of his competitors.
-
MFMP are releasing ash analysis of fuel from the latest series of Parkhomov experiments. It might be wise to wait until you have more reasons to dismiss his work.
I'm correct in my dismissal - and would be even if he has Nobel Prize worthy new science. The previous write-ups do not demonstrate this.
Anyway - I'll be fascinated as always to look at the ash analysis.
-
Axil,
You know I care for your words. I try to speak plainly and I am self aware of the snark creeping in sometimes when I post. I can not understand honestly why you but such faith in a deceiver. Why can you not separate your love of LENR from someone who is doing so much to destroy it? While a careful reading above may be true depending on view (I owe you that). It does not address that the e-cat doesn't work. This is not theory on how CF works now but instead a simple litany of deceit. He has zero competitors now he is standing on a dais and quite literally being judged next week. I feel I am not being a friend if I am not honest with you. We need to get back on the LENR ship and he as no future on it.
-
Axil,
You know I care for your words. I try to speak plainly and I am self aware of the snark creeping in sometimes when I post. I can not understand honestly why you but such faith in a deceiver. Why can you not separate your love of LENR from someone who is doing so much to destroy it? While a careful reading above may be true depending on view (I owe you that). It does not address that the e-cat doesn't work. This is not theory on how CF works now but instead a simple litany of deceit. He has zero competitors now he is standing on a dais and quite literally being judged next week. I feel I am not being a friend if I am not honest with you. We need to get back on the LENR ship and he as no future on it.
First, the evaluation of a LENR system has nothing to do with the morality of its developer. Next, I was greatly impressed by Rossi's latest very knowledgeable and technically consistent theory paper which must have been written by Carl-Oscar Gullström more than Rossi. Continuing, Rossi's patent update fits into my understanding of how LENR works and has been supported by info that I have observed from the ME356 systems. Lastly, Rossi's latest system is consistent with other like systems that most probably function both through direct replication and is consistent with its shared characteristics to other similar dirty plasma based systems.
The confusion produced in the give and take of a court case should be excluded from evaluation of technical merit. This professionally generated spin produced in such cases generates a fog of the intellect that is hard to overcome and is best ignored. Serious consideration of this legal and political inspired spin, a tool based on pride, money, hate, jealousy, greed, and the desire for commercial dominance which is emotionally corrosive of the intellect, is generally a waste of time.
