Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • You forgot that they (the Uppsala team) are doing their research in an University laboratory. They are all well experienced Academics and also in Uppsala there is plenty of experts in any field they can consult in a confidential way.

    There is no reason why they should consult a person like you.

    Color vs Temperature of transparent material (like glass or alumina) is not such trivial topic as you think.

    Yes, we have heard the rumor that the profs continue to be led around by the nose by AR. They continue in their insular bubble, free from criticism, and probably kept busy trying to refine "promising" results. It is to AR's advantage to keep them hoping, isolated, and working for something positive at least until the lawsuit is over.


    Indeed. The color vs. temp problem for a material like alumina is much more difficult than the profs believed. But the problem is not that the surface temperature is hotter than it appears! The color of the reactor in the pictures from the report indicates a temperature in the 800's range. This is consistent with empirical studies and multiple calculation methods applied to the data presented for Lugano, putting the actual temperature within a range consistent with the visible color. I don't expect you to answer this, because you prefer to snipe and run, but how can alumina be ~600C hotter than it appears?

  • You forgot that they (the Uppsala team) are doing their research in an University laboratory. They are all well experienced Academics and also in Uppsala there is plenty of experts in any field they can consult in a confidential way.

    There is no reason why they should consult a person like you.

    Color vs Temperature of transparent material (like glass or alumina) is not such trivial topic as you think.


    (1) The Lugano team clearly thought it was a trivial matter when that wrote the Lugano Report. Compare that with TC's critique (which notes the translucence issues, and many others) and you will see how unsophisticated they were at that time. You have previously supported the Lugano report as being correct in spite of its naive treatment of optical properties. So now you are changing your mind?


    (2) The resident expert on alumina translucence issues here is Paradigmnoia, who unlike you or (at time of Lugano report) the Lugano team has done work on this.


    (3) I was not aware that the lab you work in influences the quality of your understanding. It must be some mystical University effect? I can think of a number of counter-examples!


    (4) There is no doubt there are many experts, who anyone (not just Upsalla academics) can consult. The issue is whether they do this with an open mind, and the will to learn. You will remember that Levi claims to have consulted colleagues at Bologna to support his known wrong idea that band emissivity is irrelevant to thermographic temperature determination of non-grey-bodies. Any thermography expert will tell you the opposite.

  • Where did you get the 'Bologna' bit from?


    OK - strike that. Mats said Levi said he had consulted colleagues to validate the Lugano report. Obviously not Ele, who seems now to have a more sophisticated view of the matter than in the past. I don't know who at which institution Levi claims share his mistake. And I thought Mats mentioned Bologna, but maybe I was wrong...

  • If alumina becomes "transparent" at a high enough temperature, could an internal light source (hot filament, or something else) make it appear hotter to the thermocamera?

    I'm only curious, not implying anything.

    Yes, of course. It can and does happen. It can appear hotter than the surface of the reactor actually is. What I am asking: how can the opposite happen? How can it appear to be cooler than the surface temperature of the reactor by 600C?


    I am asking this more for the sake of argument than seeking an answer, because it is not something that can happen.

  • If alumina becomes "transparent" at a high enough temperature, could an internal light source (hot filament, or something else) make it appear hotter to the thermocamera?

    I'm only curious, not implying anything.


    At 7-13u alumina is pretty well opaque, so no such effect. Otherwise, if it were transparent, it could result in underestimation of temperature, depending on the emissivity of the internal source. But that would only be if you did not follow Levi and used the band emissivity correctly. Otherwise you still likely get overestimate of temperature.

  • One possibility: the photo was not taken at the point in time that the authors thought that the reactor was at its peak temperature, and instead it was taken when the reactor was still warming up.

    Indeed. Yet, the profs did not answer even this simple question from Jed. Based on the evidence from the alternative calculations and empirical evidence, the visible color is consistent with the operation at the high temp range (800s).


  • How do you get from Cherokee misallocating 100K legal expenses (and you know how complex such things can be) to IH having 250M income? You have no evidence of this, nor likelihood...


    Oh, I forgot. You are one of the very select band who reckon RossiSays = truth. No wonder you remained wrong (don't worry - we have the evidence of your arguments on threads here preserved) for so long about band emissivity. After all, RossiSaid it was not an issue!


    On a more positive note, I applaud your change of view now. It is never too late to learn new tricks. Even Rossi has done this. Look at his recent isotopic sample - previous criticism that he'd put too much 62Ni into it, and this could therefore not sensibly be a reaction product, seems to have helped him to make the later sample more plausible. What I want to know is how can he be sure it is not contaminated when his previous ash sample turned out contaminated but only after 2 years of everyone believing it was real, and the person he gave it to dying, ...


    :)

  • SSC - do you really believe this test gives them confirmation, or ever could? It is set up from the start to provide zero information.


    If they want confirmation, and have working reactors, all they have to do is test a few monitoring breakdowns etc. They get better reliability info that way. And no $89M at risk.

    You should ask JTV, not me. He said this thing.....

    254-04:

    Q. Do you think that was something that would be important to inform him, that he no longer had the opportunity to earn $89 million?

    A.: [...] Our goal, as stewards and as managers, is to determine definitively the state of the art. And by being confrontational, sooner rather than later, it ensured that you would just blow up in -- there was a chance, at least, that you would blow up the entire relationship and Andrea would stop working on it altogether and so, therefore, we just wouldn't know. Versus getting more information and getting more data to determine the state of the art.

  • As has been pointed out before, and which I'll take the time to point out again: (1) IH are only the trustees of the funding that was obtained from Woodford and others. They will have to cough it back up if they have not used it for the purposes for which it was obtained, e.g., if they use it instead for self-enrichment, or for buying real estate in Florida. (2) They are likely to have represented to Woodford and others that this is a promising but high-risk investment. IH need no great confidence in Rossi's tech to do (1) and (2) in good faith, only some level of hope and optimism, accurately represented as such, together with the risks. Indeed, I find it much more likely that they did not convey confidence in Rossi's tech to Woodford and others.

    This is not the point, Eric. I was just following your reasoning: if you believe in Darden when he says something like the story of the dummy with high COP or the story that they never had positive results from their own tests, then we are not talking about high risk but we are talking about the certainty of a technology failure. So if Darden had these certainties before even contacting investors, he would never have to raise funds from them.

  • Yes, we have heard the rumor that the profs continue to be led around by the nose by AR. They continue in their insular bubble, free from criticism, and probably kept busy trying to refine "promising" results. It is to AR's advantage to keep them hoping, isolated, and working for something positive at least until the lawsuit is over.

    "Insular bubble"? "isolated"? Where do you think they are performing their experiments, on the Moon?? Those who know a little about the university environment know that it is impossible to run experiments in laboratories without anyone knowing what's happening.Universities are not hermetic boxes ....

  • This is not the point, Eric. I was just following your reasoning: if you believe in Darden when he says something like the story of the dummy with high COP or the story that they never had positive results from their own tests, then we are not talking about high risk but we are talking about the certainty of a technology failure. So if Darden had these certainties before even contacting investors, he would never have to raise funds from them.


    Getting a high COP from a dummy reactor is not a basis for concluding with certainty that Rossi's tech did not work. One can have concluded that Rossi was not measuring things properly up to that point in all aspects and that more rigor was required (as it surely was). But one can still have held out hope at that time that Rossi actually had something despite the poor testing methodology and that the primary reason for IH not getting robust results was that Rossi had not yet fully transferred the technology. Here we are in that in-between area, where there's still some hope together with a sunk cost, as well as some doubts.

  • So Rossi gets $11.5M for the most important technological breakthrough in decades then goes and buys condos, Cadillacs, imaginary heat exchangers, possible vacations to Russia, possible visiting researcher funds to Oops-salla, pinball source code development software at the prestigious and historic University of Bologna and $2 to $3M worth of litigation with the money. He uses the balance for development of the be- all / end-all breakthroughs of the next century all without monetizing the breakthrough of this century. Huh???

  • So now you are changing your mind?

    No. I'm not. :) The Lugano Report is correct !

    Everytime I analyzed one of the "critiques" I have found that they ware ill based. Interesting that the Lugano team is supported by their Universities.

    Critiques live only in IH voces like yours.

    But that would only be if you did not follow Levi and used the band emissivity correctly.

    In fact Levi (and all the Uppsala Professors and also their collegues that surely have seen the report before it was published )used the correct emissivity.

    Note that the paper contained already two self calibrations and emissivity measurements.


    Only people that "have to say so" use the ill formed critique of the band emissivity,


    The "rumors" that the Uppsala research is giving good results does not come from Rossi.

    Universities don't assign a laboratory for a certain research without results.

  • At 7-13u alumina is pretty well opaque, so no such effect. Otherwise, if it were transparent, it could result in underestimation of temperature, depending on the emissivity of the internal source. But that would only be if you did not follow Levi and used the band emissivity correctly. Otherwise you still likely get overestimate of temperature.


    Just to clarify the reasoning behind the very quick thought I had - it's random idea-level, sorry if it ignores other discussions/conclusions:


    - The QuarkX sounds like it is something similar to a gas discharge lamp according to the most recent Rossisays.

    - Darden himself reported in a private email in 2014 of having seen "flashes of energy" in transparent tube reactors when heated with the Rossi fuel. These weren't the QuarkX yet.

    - If the reaction produces light, its spectral peaks can probably be tuned.

    - Alumina is opaque to the visible range, but is it actually to infrared light? If it's a small % transparent at the edge of the IR camera detection range, this could still potentially affect the reported temperature depending on the characteristics of the light source. I haven't found many sources about this property, but one seems to suggest that it could be transparent to some extent (item number 9 seems to be referring to alumina, not monocrystalline sapphire).

  • Indeed. Yet, the profs did not answer even this simple question from Jed. Based on the evidence from the alternative calculations and empirical evidence, the visible color is consistent with the operation at the high temp range (800s).


    Maybe they felt it was not in their interest and the best possible PR.
    Any way, I'm sure there are established channels for communication and feedback between them and the IH camp.

  • ... "The QuarkX sounds like it is something similar to a gas discharge lamp according to the most recent Rossisays":


    "Gas discharge lamp" based on embrittled soft ferrites embedded in variable B fields and "measured" in Lugano with IR cameras, near or below Curie point - the "mouse".

  • Here is one of the most expert persons regarding alumina infrared characteristics. I suggest reading several of his relevant papers on the subject.

    I suggest:

    DETERMINING THE TRANSMITTANCE AND EMITTANCE OF TRANSPARENT AND SEMITRANSPARENT MATERIALS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES

    and

    Development and characterization of low emitting ceramics


    (Papers by Rozenbaum et al are also excellent.)



    https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=axiRa44AAAAJ&hl=de

  • Even I have read some of that stuff - but only cos you posted it. my original ref was not as good. :)


    It will be good for Ele since he has not yet worked out that IR band emission from non-grey-bodies cannot be characterised from total emissivity.


  • :)


    OK - let us follow your logic and assume a fluorescent-type narrow spectral line in the 7-13u range. (Not that this is plausible from this system, and as I say alumina is opaque to IR, translucent to visible. The apparent opaqueness at visible you see comes from microcrystalline structure which causes much internal reflection see P's excellent ref above). What would it mean for the IR temperature measurements?


  • So - this is maybe bad news for you Ele - I'm sorry to break it to you. But those guys in Unis you talk about - not the Lugano testers who are behaving very atypically - don't pay any attention to EleSays with no supporting argument, and do pay a lot of attention to things like this. I guess that must be the mystical University lab effect making them biassed? Or maybe they just prefer latex published documents? What do you think?


    More seriously. I'm up for detailed mathematical argument showing how an IR thermographic camera with one-band sensor measuring only 7-13u could possibly respond to radiant frequency from a non-grey-body such that temperature can be inferred from body total emissivity. Take as a counter-example two non-grey-bodies with identical T.E. and 7-13u band emissivity of 0.1 and 1 respectively at a given temperature T. One will receive 10X more radiant power than the other, yet they have the same actual temperature (T). If you claim this cannot happen would you like me to post the relevant spectra, and show you how to get the corresponding total and band emissivities? It is not difficult...


    You could look at TC's paper linked above and detail which equation there is wrong, and how it should be corrected? Or some other detailed argument. But not, please, EleSays. The beauty of maths is that you have to be precise which leaves no room for twisty half-truth and misdirection - there is all too much of that in this leggal case.

  • 303 is well written, and researched. It addresses each sides attempts to disallow, or limit the other's expert testimony. Both Smith and Murray passed muster, but Wong not so much. Here are Wong's 4 opinions the court considered:


    (1) the coefficient of performance is a suitable criterion to gauge the

    E-Cat’s performance;


    (2) there are logical explanations for the inverse relationship between the

    power input into a device and its coefficient of performance;


    (3) it was possible for one

    megawatt of heat energy to be expelled without rendering the Doral facility an unsafe working

    environment; and


    (4) it was possible to expel one megawatt of heat energy from the Doral

    facility consistent with the Penon Report.


    The court determined that Wong will not be allowed to testify on 1 and 2...which pretty much knocks out the Penon report. He is allowed however, to testify on 3&4...both concerning the upstairs heat exchanger. What a lucky guy! :) I bet he is wondering how the hell his reputation became hostage to a Rossisays. Would not want to be in his shoes.


    It was very clear from my reading, that the author of 303 understood, that Wong's opinion being based on a Rossisays, makes 3 and 4 opinion borderline excludable. He concludes though by playing it safe, and deciding that a jury is best suited to judge whether Rossi is being truthful.


    Rossi will be hammered on the stand about this. His story sounds just like...well, a story. No pics, no documentation, fathom day laborers, no one else noticed, windows intact, etc....hard to find 6 jurors who could believe him on this. His foreign accent, little guy (David) appearance, IH's big guy (Goliath) look, and Rossi's bringing his spittoon to the stand (he can not swallow), won't save him from the insincerity of his testimony.


    Take out the HE, and the case is all but over. As 303 notes, even Wong admits that without it (HE), there was no 1MW.

  • OK - let us follow your logic and assume a fluorescent-type narrow spectral line in the 7-13u range. [...] What would it mean for the IR temperature measurements?


    Thanks for following along. If the tube emitted more energy in a narrow band within or near that range compared to an ideal black body, wouldn't it appear hotter to the IR camera than it actually is? I think this apparent excess heat would disappear or at the very least not be as visible in a calorimeter or with thermocouples. Is this reasoning correct?