Quote from Rends

For example you and I had massive disputes, but I can not remember that I attack you on that level?

On your scale, at what level is doxing?

Quote from IH Fanboy

@THH

IH is bad news for LENR, which would have been better off, and more open, had they never entered the scene. Rossi would likely have been vindicated by now, and we would have all been moving forward with positivity rather than the cesspool that has been created.

So: this is why many people here find your posts weird. The extreme bias required, after all the evidence now released, to think that is quite something. How can a self-professed liar and cheat be vindicated? There are some people here who are very committed to Ni-H LENR. That is their life's work and they hope it will save the world. For them, Rossi's stuff working in some form is a validation that their work is possible, and they are very reluctant to think of his stuff as not working, because it would decrease their belief in what they are doing.

But you? You seem to have some idea about LENR saving the world but your only attachment to Rossi is that you think Rossi's stuff might do that. It is bad judgement.

The evidence against Rossi's stuff working (a bit) is zero. He has nevr allowed tests that are not rubbish, so we have no accurate information. The evidence against it ever working the way he claims is overwhelming. Specifically in this one year test the JMP box cannot dissipate more than 100kW. The imaginary upstairs heat exchanger cannot dissipate more than 200kW (I'm adding 100% leeway everywhere just on general principles).

You need to believe:

• That Rossi would remove individual glass panes when his system is on, putting them back (how - call the glass guys every time?) whenever the JMP box is using all 1MW of the power.
• That the heat exchanger design is something very different from what Rossi on oath said, or from what he used in the JMP box (which is the same as what he said on oath).
• That Rossi deceived his own expert witness making him think his heat exchanger was 10X less effective than was actually true.
• That the JMP box can dissipate 1MW on its own (when Rossi puts the glass panes back). How? There is the same problem of not enough heat exchanger there. Worse in fact. And no way to remove heat from the factory which would overheat.

Each of those 4 propositions is totally implausible. All four must be true for the Penon Report to be correct. Otherwise it is seriously out, and the error can't be limited. It is most likely to be all rubbish and Rossi COP=1

You might add that if Rossi had what he claims any number of people would be happy to give him very large amounts of money for it. You can tell this, because IH found it easy to get funding. Rossi could call IH's bluff (if you consider it that) by allowing his stuff to be independently tested. Rossi's actions make much better sense if he knows his stuff would never work when independently tested. And that has always been the case. Rossi has stated on oath that he has no product, no partner (other than IH).

I find your bias here extraordinary because unlike many on ECW you do listen to all of the evidence (except the technical stuff, which you flag as - I can't judge myself - I think all the experts are liars except Rossi's experts).

@THH,

I think, as a LENR-denier, you have no valid platform from which to launch your attacks. That the IH supporters warm up to folks like you I think speaks volumes.

Quote from THHuxleynew

the two errors that would happily give COP=9 are easy to be missed by unsophisticated IH staff who are led by Rossi and don't imagine he is actively deceiving them.

Jed says that IH had a very smart, competent engineers working on the e-cat well before Murray came on board. He is "in the know."

Quote from IH Fanboy

Well, why do you think there is a clean area about the size of a steam pipe crossing the left section of the door threshold?

Why? I think the couple of inches close to the door-frame are less worn out because usually you don't step close to the door frame when you walk through a door

Watch yourself the next couple of days how often you step close to the door-frame.

Quote from Forty-Two

Why? I think the couple of inches close to the door-frame are less worn out because usually you don't step close to the door frame when you walk through a door

Watch yourself the next couple of days how often you step close to the door-frame.

Well yes, that is one possibility, but don't you think both sides of the threshold would have dirtied at about the same degree? Why is one side nearly completely clean, while the other side has a gradual gradient from dirty to cleanish?

Quote from THHuxleynew

the reason [Dewey] is so hard on a few posters here is because he wholeheartedly believes they are bad news for LENR

Nope, sorry. Dewey was a dick rude to people from the moment he first stepped foot into the LENR blogosphere and before he started posting here. It had nothing to do with what people were saying about IH. I think it's just the kind of person he is.

Quote from joshg

Jed says that IH had a very smart, competent engineers working on the e-cat well before Murray came on board. He is "in the know."

josh. it's not inconsistent. You don't realise the extent to which smart tech types tend not to believe deceit possible form tech colleagues, but are very willing to reckon Murphy's Law applies and weird things are something they have done wrong.

That is the right attitude all the time - except when dealing with a Rossi.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@THH,

I think, as a LENR-denier, you have no valid platform from which to launch your attacks. That the IH supporters warm up to folks like you I think speaks volumes.

I hope, given you are somone who views a skeptic as an LENR-denier, you have nothing to do with LENR. You'd be bad for it. This is a point that quite a number of LENR supporters (I think most who actively do research and have a track record) have made.

To be fair - were I like you, my estimate of probability would severely compromise my ability to process evidence. Maybe you can't help but see anyone who judges LENR as probably not a real nuclear effect as biased by that judgement, because you would be yourself?

Quote from THHuxleynew

josh. it's not inconsistent. You don't realise the extent to which smart tech types tend not to believe deceit possible form tech colleagues, but are very willing to reckon Murphy's Law applies and weird things are something they have done wrong.

That is the right attitude all the time - except when dealing with a Rossi.

No, if they were competent then they should have done proper calorimetry from the get-go.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I hope, given you are somone who views a skeptic as an LENR-denier, you have nothing to do with LENR. You'd be bad for it. This is a point that quite a number of LENR supporters (I think most who actively do research and have a track record) have made.

Well, I can completely understand why IH-funded LENR researchers would think that. But you know what? Most of the interesting LENR research (i.e., of the commercially viable caliber) is now being done by non-IH-funded outfits. IH has regressed in its thinking.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Well yes, that is one possibility, but don't you think both sides of the threshold would have dirtied at about the same degree? Why is one side nearly completely clean, while the other side has a gradual gradient from dirty to cleanish?

Well, first of all there is not too much difference between both sides, and second, it makes sense that the right side (as shown on the picture) is more dirty, because the stair must have been on the right side (on the left side is a wall), and naturally when you walk through a door, you take the shorter path.

(Damn, why I'm even wasting time for this BS)

Quote from IH Fanboy

You can say grade school as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that Smith didn't even know the maximum rate of the pumps. He at least provided us with a dimension for the inner diameter of the pipe: 4.5 inches! And you know what the pressure loss is? Next to nothing! So your whole false pressure edifice came tumbling down. It seems likely to me that Smith concocted the connection between the return path and the steam riser, so that he could claim the system was flooded. I very much doubt Smith's conclusions.

Smith gave the size of the pipe???? He was not there when the pipes were in position. It was a year later.

Quote from Forty-Two

Since this "homemade" heat exchanger issue pops up again and again, here once more a link to a website which helps one to calculate the heat loss from a bare (as well as if insulated) pipe:

https://cheguide.com/tag/bare-pipe/

Just downloading their excel tool makes it even easier:

https://cheguide.com/wp-conten…_Loss_Insulated_Pipe.xlsx

Here the calculation for a DN150 pipe (BTW: Who the heck would use DN150 pipes for such a heat exchanger?)

No one, ever, under any similar condition

Would EVER use pipe as heat transfer surface, EVER.

Absolutely mind knumbingly foolish for anyone, anywhere to even consider it was done this way.

Yet, it seems to be defended by some.

Display More

Quote from IH Fanboy

@THH,

I think, as a LENR-denier, you have no valid platform from which to launch your attacks. That the IH supporters warm up to folks like you I think speaks volumes.

I did not know that THH was a LENR denier. I would like to know if that is true from THH. I just thought it was that like me, he believes LENR may be true in the hands of others just not in the hands of Rossi who is just trying to get money from IH do to their excessive hopes.

Quote from IHSupporter

I did not know that THH was a LENR denier. I would like to know if that is true from THH. I just thought it was that like me, he believes LENR may be true in the hands of others just not in the hands of Rossi who is just trying to get money from IH do to their excessive hopes.

I'm fascinated by the collection of anomalies called LENR. My best guess so far is that they are best explained by a variety of error mechanisms. If an LENR theory that had predictive power came up I'd be interested. Equally, if predictive LENR experimental results were obtained (say like Abd's favourite heat/He correlation) I'd be interested.

I believe passionately that it is possible - indeed necessary - to view evidence with an open but not vacuous mind. We all should admit that we have views, and struggle against them when evaluating evidence. Note my pseudonym, THH, who said:

“Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads or you shall learn nothing.”

Note that I include LENR (as something to look for) in the list of preconceived notions.

Quote from Roseland67

Roseland67 - your calculator gives 152kW from 220m and your temps. That is a good deal higher than the Siemens calculator estimate (101kW if I remember right), and needs to be explained.

(1) Your estimate includes radiation. That makes it more accurate than mine. Although maybe not because the emissivity of steel pipe would be low unless it was corroded?

(2) your estimate includes forced and free convection components. In an enclosure the free component is much smaller - mine is more accurate here

(2) Your estimate uses 101/30 vs my 100/33. That is a +6% difference.

I think that radiation + the forced/free thing is enough to account for the difference (I had to read your stuff before i thought this, since I only had radiation and that did not seem enough).

A great example of how by being interested in anomalous data you end up with deeper understanding of the problem.

THH

PS - viewing this thing as isolated pipes is not accurate anyway - but that overestimates the heat dissipation so is OK.

PPS - using transverse airflow over pipes is not too bad for a heat exchanger - the big problem is that the pipes are 150mm - much too large. But a more sensible design with smaller pipes would contribute too much pressure drop for Rossi's weird 0 atmosphere output to work I guess. With such a larger air flowrate needed (to carry 1MW you really need double that stated by Rossi to have a sensible outlet temp) a design with longitudinal flow, lots of air baffles and therefore a much higher air flowrate would have power issues.