Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

It appears that the PCE-830 does show the power on each channel:

https://www.industrial-needs.c…ower-anlayser-pce-830.pdf

andrea.s

Quote from andrea.s

LDM

You are right on the absolute powers in the spreadsheet. At some point I reduced the step from 1 to 0.5 degrees to have a better resolution and forgot to correct the average formula (for twice the no. of samples). Thanks for spotting that.

This however changes nothing about the key point the spreadsheet wants to make, which is: when inverting a clamp (I1 in my spreadsheet) the power reading is wrong and the apparent COP varies with the conduction interval.

Today and the comming days I am very busy. Hope soon to have time to react to this statement.

Have to go now

IH Fanboy

Good catch, now that I've seen it I remember. Ok so there it is, very clear on a single screenshot and easier than a polar plot. So all we need is one of the Ferrara and Lugano testers to post a screenshot from each actual test. I have been asking for this since a few years. I received a private reply from Rossi, mostly based on arguments ad autoritatem, but nothing from the authors. Levi dismissed this idea on the blogs, which is understandable, but there are other five or six people who were there to review the work as peers.

Quote from IH Fanboy

No, there was zero current on the third clamp. And while a reversed clamp would alter the total power calculated by the PCE-830, the power for each individual clamp would be calculated correctly, just with a flipped sign for the reversed clamp. Do you mean to tell me that you don't think Levi checked the power for each clamp individually?

Prize for the most heroic number of assumptions on this page goes to... IHFB

You assume that the magic black box pushed the same power through the magic reversed clamp phase during the control and the active tests. The point of this system is that it is easy to make it tell you what you want it to - and still spoof it!

Permit me to revise my suggestion about what even a half brained person would do. Maybe you are right that the PCE-830 does not show the individual phase powers, although had I engineered the product, it would have. In any case, it would be simple enough to use a single clamp to individually measure the current (and therefore the power) on each wire. Just do it one at a time while the system is under full load. Look at the individual values. Do they look right? Are they all in positive territory? Is there no obvious negative sign before the power value? If so, add them up.

And since one of the wires had no current flow, it is pretty simple. A + B. About the simplest math there is to do. And thus, a person with a half of a brain could do this. You don't have to be a scientist or even an engineer to know or do this. You would want to know the current and power on each line. And you would check it. And then you would configure the measurement instrument with the multiple clamps, and double check it. And you would most likely switch the clamp back and forth, and check it again to make sure you had it oriented correctly.

It must be abundantly clear now that Rossi only permits testers who have, in your words, less than half a brain. Though I think it may be something more complex and no doubt would make a social psychology thesis of interest to Schaflander.

Quote from Rionrlty

I must make an exception to my abstinence from posting to correct some misconceptions written here by THH.

1. Schaflander never claimed to invent Galium Aluminum Arsenide solar cells, only to have used them and devised a way to manufacture them orders of magnitude cheaper than then current technology.

2. He was not an inventor and never claimed to be. He simply organized and funded a scientific team to accomplish a set of goals.

3. And yes you can do it with hydrogen, as has been demonstrated many times since.

4. He was not only trying but succeeding in developing his technology when the powers that be brought pressure to bear and closed him down. My own opinion derived from insider information via my wife's involvement was that when the oil company offer was rejected the US government was persuaded to step in and quash the technology on behalf of the oil company. His proprietary information was actually confiscated by the US government so it could only be further developed at their prerogative. In all fairness I don't believe this could occur in this manner in this modern era, what with the internet. Today it would need to be far more nuanced and subtle, but I have no doubt it could be orchestrated, and may well be in the case of the Rossi and the Ecat. I'm sure the government is not ignorant of APCO or astroturfing.

Display More

Correction accepted. Schaflander has a profile more of a people person than a nerd and no doubt was good at what he did using his social psychology training to great effect. We have no obvious information who was providing these 100X better than industry metrics. I guess some technical guy now lost? Or, perhaps Schaflander was just guessing. It sounds to me like an idea written down on a cigarette packet and marketed without anyone actually working out the real costs.

It is common for startups to be overly optimistic about their technology but this one goes a bit far. The other problem is the £350 conversion to H2 operation, since IC engines do not simply convert to H2 for the obvious reason that it burns very differently from gasolene.

I think it preposterous (or at least unlikely) that Levi would not have looked at the power reading associated with each wire.

I must pick up IHFB on this one. On the contrary all the evidence we have about Levi (and the mice) is that their tests have an astonishing (to external observers) lack of normal common-sense validation. You also leave out the fact that this test was Levi + Rossi and if Rossi was the guy in charge of setting up the PCE-830 Levi would not question that.

Oh - how do i know Levi would not question that? Because Levi and Rossi remained friends, and we well know that Rossi does not allow friends who check his work.

The way errors propagate in organisations is often that no-one can believe others would have been so stupid as not to check something. In retrospect we look at things from a different standpoint and what to check is obvious. At the time, not always so obvious so all it takes is a bit of misdirection (deliberate or innocent) and we get an error that persists because it must have been checked.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Correction accepted. Schaflander has a profile more of a people person than a nerd and no doubt was good at what he did using his social psychology training to great effect. We have no obvious information who was providing these 100X better than industry metrics. I guess some technical guy now lost? Or, perhaps Schaflander was just guessing. It sounds to me like an idea written down on a cigarette packet and marketed without anyone actually working out the real costs.

It is common for startups to be overly optimistic about their technology but this one goes a bit far. The other problem is the £350 conversion to H2 operation, since IC engines do not simply convert to H2 for the obvious reason that it burns very differently from gasolene.

Here is part of a reply that I made to a poster over on ECW who found some posts about this process on an obscure forum from over 10 years ago. The conversion was at first accomplished with a "cracker" located in the engine compartment to convert the liquid Hydrogen/ammonia to a gas prior to injecting it into the carburetor using a device similar to CNG or propane conversion. Later they went to directly feeding the fuel into the carburetor and simply re-jetting it for the change in fuel. This eliminated the cracker and saved a lot of money. It was not a difficult conversion. See my reply below for further clarification:

"Some of what the OP says demonstrates to me that he knew little about the automotive technology of the day. I on the other hand have been a car guy for over 50 years now and knew the right questions to ask even back then. In the late 70’s cars had been artificially de-tuned as a bandaide method of reducing emissions, especially in California. Only ten years earlier, in the late 60’s some performance cars had run as high as 11.5 to 1 compression ratios and pumped out 400 hp or more. By 1978 the peak compression ratio was about 7 to one, and the same displacement that had netted 400hp in 1970 was only producing a little over half that much. The ones that remained from the 60’s had to be detuned as around 1980 leaded gas became unavailable except as Avgas, only available from airports. On top of that fuel efficiency had dropped by at least 20% over that same period. In talking to one of the auto technicians in the shop area of CSEP I learned that Hy-fuel only netted less than 80% of the BTU output of gasoline, but was much higher in octane than currently available gasoline. This enabled them to advance the timing on the test cars to the point they were only losing about 10% power efficiency. In this regard the comment about camshaft duration has some relevance, in that valve timing could have been very much more advanced, supported by a higher available compression ratio due to the higher octane of the fuel, sort of like having a racing cam in your car. They had estimated at least as high as 14 to 1 and probably higher. This would have effectively doubled the horsepower output, or conversely have doubled the fuel efficiency."

FWIW, I ran a 550 hp propane-fueled engine with a custom-made four barrel, twin vapor supply, venturi effect mixer that could of flow over 1000 CFM. The engine had 13.4 : 1 compression, custom cam, pistons, etc. In a 3800 lb car, it would do 12.3 sec 1/4 mile on a real track, and was a daily driver. It had electronic feedback fuel control with O2 sensor for normal driving (on two barrels), and a holy s**t mode when the vacuum secondaries cut in, activating a secondary feed and feeding a custom lie signal to the O2 sensor lead on the fuel control.

The car was practically undrivable in the rain. It ate driveshafts, differentials, and tore the inner bead out of the rear tires on a regular basis. That car typically got 21 mpg at 65 mph, although it could get close to 1 mpg if I put the hammer down.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Prize for the most heroic number of assumptions on this page goes to... IHFB

You assume that the magic black box pushed the same power through the magic reversed clamp phase during the control and the active tests. The point of this system is that it is easy to make it tell you what you want it to - and still spoof it!

For crying out loud THH (advanced apologies for the Jedism, but finally we have an instance where it fits). It was you who made assumptions, not me. You assumed that a single reversed clamp would result in a 1/3 reading of real power, and therefore suspiciously match the ~2 COP. How did you get to that 1/3 number? Would you like to explain your reasoning? (If not, I would be happy to provide the likely reasoning and assumption behind it.)

Quote from andrea.s

IH Fanboy

Good catch, now that I've seen it I remember. Ok so there it is, very clear on a single screenshot and easier than a polar plot. So all we need is one of the Ferrara and Lugano testers to post a screenshot from each actual test. I have been asking for this since a few years. I received a private reply from Rossi, mostly based on arguments ad autoritatem, but nothing from the authors. Levi dismissed this idea on the blogs, which is understandable, but there are other five or six people who were there to review the work as peers.

I had a vague memory of seeing that same LCD display back when this test was originally put through the ringer as well, which is why I went back to dig it up.

To believe THH's power FUD, one would also have to believe the following:

1) That Levi and the five or six peer reviewers were a bunch of bumbling idiots

2) That nobody would think to check the power associated with each input wire to the system, perhaps the most important measurements to take in such a test. It's not like this is a hard task. This is easy. Much easier than measuring the output.

3) That nobody understands what a negative sign '-' is

4) That nobody noticed the error on the PCE-830 that would be displayed if one of the clamps was reversed

Speaking of PCE 830's, did anyone catch that Penon changed the a Doral PCE 830 to something else because the PCE could not at times resolve the very high currents used?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Speaking of PCE 830's, did anyone catch that Penon changed the a Doral PCE 830 to something else because the PCE could not at times resolve the very high currents used?

@PGM: Before you invent the next unbelievable story, just explain how AR can get 60kWh out of 6 kWh input, in the case where no steam was produced...

We all would like to understand !

Para,

The physical meter can resolve any current used, BUT, the correct current transformer ratio must also be used.

Problem could arise IF, the current varied greatly and very large ct's may not be accurate under very low current flow.

i.e.:

1000 amp current transformers trying to accurately measure a 5 amp current flow

Quote from Wyttenbach

@PGM: Before you invent the next unbelievable story, just explain how AR can get 60kWh out of 6 kWh input, in the case where no steam was produced...

We all would like to understand !

Which experiment? (PDF the report for definiteness) and I'll tell you. I might be wrog, Rossi has many ways of doing his magic, but most are pretty obvious...

Roseland67 ,

It has been a while since I looked this stuff up, but I thought the PCE clamps were Hall effect type.

Maybe they aren't. I am packing for a trip so I can't dig up manual at the moment.

Wyttenbach ,

It would be so easy to spin the water meter to whatever one wanted, if one were inclined to do so. Besides shooting a stream of water across the turbine, I think a drill with a magnet on a dowel could do it, too. One the water meter values are tricked out, any purported kWh could be faked.

Why anyone would let the benefactor of $89 million take the water meter readings the money is ultimately based on is beyond me.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Which experiment? (PDF the report for definiteness) and I'll tell you. I might be wrog, Rossi has many ways of doing his magic, but most are pretty obvious...

@THH: E-cat test in Doral, DOCK 245/15 page 31 Data of 07/31 08/01. Just calculate...with delta T 34 degress.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

It would be so easy to spin the water meter to whatever one wanted, if one were inclined to do so. Besides shooting a stream of water across the turbine, I think a drill with a magnet on a dowel could do it, too. One the water meter values are tricked out, any purported kWh could be faked.

Yes with a COP of 1 you would have a pool water temperature close to 23 degrees the Doral daily average... Quite below what we would believe.

Oh sorry. I forgott the bypass! There was no heat going to the other side, just fed back into the E-cat feed water pool....

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Besides shooting a stream of water across the turbine, I think a drill with a magnet on a dowel could do it, too. One the water meter values are tricked out, any purported kWh could be faked.

Well, based on the configuration and photographs, we know a stream of water wasn't shot across a turbine. So you really think swirling a magnet next to the flow meter will magically cause some digits to flip, to exactly what you want no less? These conjectures just keep getting more and more unbelievable. Again, disappointed with you Para. Your past analysis have at least been rooted in data.

IH Fanboy ,

Since there are a bunch of dials, one would only need to spin the meter to within 500L, and rounding takes care of the rest.

Anyways, we don't know a stream of water was not sprayed across the turbine based on configurations and photographs. Those things are only applicable to when they were done. For all we know a solid tube was installed in place of the water meter except on some days that someone other than Rossi looked at it. It seems to be bundled in insulation, unrecognizable, in photos so far...

Oh, and what about the Customer water meter? You know, the one that was supposedly installed there so they could measure energy received?

Anyways, ask a silly or loaded question, and a silly or loaded answer is appropriate (if not ideal).