Are you sure that the "significant excess heat" was with Rossi's device or could it have been some of their other supported researcher.? Can you give a reference that would be interesting?
Rossi's devices, built by IH/Cherokee
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
Rossi's devices, built by IH/Cherokee
"They appeared to operate.... though we do not want to report specific multiples until we have reviewed the data thoroughly and conducted tests using at least two thermal cameras..."
-
"Our camera is very expensive and presumably accurate"
"We stopped them (the reactors) after a half day and waited until Thursday 9/12, to start them again. They appeared to operate similarly and we believe they produced significant excess energy"
That's a a lot of ad hoc hypothesis you conjure to explain how there never was excess heat with those reactors IH/Cherokee built themselves: very expensive thermal cameras are not accurate, IH/Cherokee people don't know how to calibrate them, to the extent that they do not know how to calibrate them at all, since they get the same results during another run of the reactors (which entails re-calibration)
This happened in... 2013. So, according to your hypothesis that swamp gas explains what are false observations of excess energy in Rossi's reactors built by IH/Cherokee, it took them more than two years to finally understand that swamp gas explains those false observations.But believe what you will, some people need a cult, even if it's a reverse one, in which you have to believe that things that logically are, aren't.
-
There's a Vaughn email where he describes seeing ecat excess heat in a water boiling experiment... No messing about with IR cams and that...
-
That's a a lot of ad hoc hypothesis you conjure to explain how there never was excess heat with those reactors IH/Cherokee built themselves: very expensive thermal cameras are not accurate, IH/Cherokee people don't know how to calibrate them, to the extent that they do not know how to calibrate them at all, since they get the same results during another run of the reactors (which entails re-calibration)
This happened in... 2013. SRoger,
Are you aware of the false use of IR cameras that Levi/Rossi promoted and was exposed only after months of re-analysis of the Lugano data?
Levi, as far as I know, is still promoting it.
How are IH supposed to detect this error unaided? If they use Levi's methodology they will get excess heat, easy peasy, even on control reactors....
Oh. Wait. that is just what happened (see court docs - Darden testimony). Rossi refused to believe it and when they demonstrated this, cut the reactor open to show it was a control, Rossi stormed out saying somone must have stolen the fuel.
Is that implausible, to you? For me, people get things wrong. Its life.
-
Quote from THH
How are IH supposed to detect this error unaided?
Following the emissivity recommendations in the camera's manual would have got them 90% of the way there.
Levi went well off-piste.
-
I wish this were so. But we know from Roswell, New Mexico, and the Yeti, and Papp, that any topic for which information is incomplete can support not only speculation but avowed supporters for decades to come. Unfortunately I think the likelihood of this lawsuit definitively sorting out the technical questions is very small at this point, and we will be left with probabilities (extremely pessimistic ones, in my view) and impressions. And if this affair has taught me anything it is that different observers will take what information is available and draw wildly different conclusions.
Hi Eric,
What i meant is that there currently is too much "LENR traction" to not arrive at a binary answer at the aforementioned question at some moment in time. MFMP, replicators and parties with a commercial objective (amongst others) are all very busy to make that "hard to deny", full frontal picture of a Yeti picking his nose. If they all fail in making that picture in the next ten years or so we have an answer. And in my opinion we have a positive answer if they succeed.
This lawsuit is just a phase in a greater discovery effort. A period that hopefully is over soon, but probably last a few more years, in which LENR stakeholders will further investigate what (technological) leads and parties are worth to invest in. A period to also figure out how to make the Yeti picture.
I do not expect that the outcome of this lawsuit will fundamentally change anything. However, the information derived from the lawsuit helped a great deal to determine the quality of the work and drivers of some of the LENR space important characters. Although the technological discoveries were very limited, it seems that both Rossi and IH are continuing their work. That they still believe in their goals. Moreover, the derived law suit information, but also the "legal" pressure has disclosed more involved parties and has pressed parties to change their LENR game plan. Both of which factors contribute to the following paradigm shift;
In 1989 you would commit intellectual suicide to attach your name and reputation to LENR, anytime soon parties will be very careful to completely deny LENR phenomena for the same reasons as in 1989.
Personally, but i am a non-technical outsider, i see that a shift is underway. And in my opinion the enigmatic character of Andrea Rossi has been and still is one of the guys that is pushing with the most force to complete the shift.
Cheers,
JB
-
Followed the emissivity recommendations in the camera's manual would have got them 90% of the way there.
Levi went well off-piste.
You let me use all the sensors and meters out of their spec ranges (temps limits, flow ranges, EMF noise,...) and I will give you whatever COP you want.
-
It would be nice if IH's experts could get together and get their story straight.
Rossi destroyed the equipment to prevent the experts from finding out what he did. So it is not possible for the experts to know exactly what happened. There is no question his results are impossible. The people in the warehouse would be dead otherwise. There is no question he lied about many things. The mezzanine heat exchange story is a particularly outrageous lie. We know the pressure was not 0.0 bar, or 1 barG. However, we cannot know exactly what happened or what the real numbers were. Rossi made sure of that.
-
Display More
Roger,
Are you aware of the false use of IR cameras that Levi/Rossi promoted and was exposed only after months of re-analysis of the Lugano data?
Levi, as far as I know, is still promoting it.
How are IH supposed to detect this error unaided? If they use Levi's methodology they will get excess heat, easy peasy, even on control reactors....
Are you aware that it would be difficult or impossible (according to Para) to get a COP of 9 or 11 due to an incorrectly configured thermal camera? Instead, you have suggested that maybe the input power was also mis-measured. Well, yeah, maybe maybe maybe.
-
You let me use all the sensors and meters out of their spec ranges (temps limits, flow ranges, EMF noise,...) and I will give you whatever COP you want.
You dismiss all positive LENR+ results by multiplying all possible error factors together (THH I'm looking at you), and I'll give you a COP of 1 or less all you want.
-
However, we cannot know exactly what happened or what the real numbers were.
I actually agree with you on this point. We can nearly never know what exactly happened in the past. I'm glad to see your thoughts have evolved from certitude to uncertainty. Because your faux surefire was getting quite trying.
-
You dismiss all positive LENR+ results by multiplying all possible error factors together (THH I'm looking at you), and I'll give you a COP of 1 or less all you want.
Well, illusory results can never be excluded, but multiple truly independent controlled tests are orders of magnitude more convincing (and nearly impossible to 'fake'). Oldguy makes a valid point that it's very easy to 'get' an erroneous COP when not using instrumentation properly.
And the simplest way to know that your instrumentation is not correct is to have a control or 'dummy' using the same instrumentation methods.
IH eventually did exactly that and found essentially identical high COP readings. They should have demanded that from the beginning in the original 1MW plant validation (hindsight is 20/20, they say, but this requirement for a controlled experiment is rudimentary).
Every funded project my team has been awarded involves a controlled experiment, for good reason.
That Rossi refused a controlled experiment in 2011 was extremely telling to me. Any researcher who thinks they've got something that works WANTS a controlled experimental design to show the world that it's the real deal (I certainly do). Rossi has been 'allergic' to any valid, independent, and controlled experimentation of his stuff for as long as I've been following him. That's why I'm convinced he's a fraud. His research practice isn't like any legitimate investigator I know.
-
Sig - yes controlled experiments are the way to go. A good test should have a control running in parallel if possible. There should be calibration runs before and after the experiments. First to check the instruments and later to show that nothing has changed with them during the testing.
For good IP transfer there should be several steps. One - have the " inventor" run the experiment while watched, two - have the experiment run by someone else under the direction of the "inventor" (without the "inventor" actually turning knobs) with the inventor's device, three - have the replicator make the system from "scratch" (nothing supplied or altered directly by the "inventor") and run it.
If you can't get to #3 then the tech was not transferred. Try again.
-
IH eventually did exactly that and found essentially identical high COP readings.
While I believe in controls when running an experiment, I don't think we know that Darden's dummy reactor "found essentially identical high COP readings." I remember Darden's story that he told during his deposition, but did he mention his dummy gave him COP 9 or 11? No.
-
Well, 9 or 11 would more likely be two Rossi specials together - input power X1/3 and Levi-style IR measurement on alumina. They would discover them at different times.
-
@THH,
The input power X1/3 was debunked, in my opinion (and yes, I did follow all of the twists and turns of that debate back in the day).
The Levi-style IR measurement on alumina is still in play (I haven't been convinced one way or the other). I'd love for the Swedish professors to weigh in, and my guess is that they eventually will if a peer-reviewed paper by a credentialed scientist were to criticize (yes, with a zeta) the Lugano report.
-
@THH,
The input power X1/3 was debunked, in my opinion (and yes, I did follow all of the twists and turns of that debate back in the day).
The Levi-style IR measurement on alumina is still in play (I haven't been convinced one way or the other). I'd love for the Swedish professors to weigh in, and my guess is that they eventually will if a peer-reviewed paper by a credentialed scientists were to criticize (yes, with a zeta) the Lugano report.
I know if I was to review such a paper (I do that from time to time) . I would suggest that they redo it with proper controls and in a control environment (room temp, air flow, humidity....) and with statements of how the IR was calibrated against the materials used and control of all emissivity's and temperatures within the camera's widest angle.
-
@THH,
The input power X1/3 was debunked, in my opinion (and yes, I did follow all of the twists and turns of that debate back in the day).
The Levi-style IR measurement on alumina is still in play (I haven't been convinced one way or the other). I'd love for the Swedish professors to weigh in, and my guess is that they eventually will if a peer-reviewed paper by a credentialed scientist were to criticize (yes, with a zeta) the Lugano report.
You are comparing apples with pairs. The Lugano test had provable X3 error due to alumina emissivity error.
However we do not know what this COP=9 test is and my best guess is as I say. But of course Rossi has many ways to cheat tests and it could be something different.
FYI - there were tantalising hints in the Lugano data at an attempt at X1/3 on input error that was foiled by the profs actually being competent enough to pick it up. But only hints, and we will never know.
Re peer review. There is no way you will get a critique of Lugano published anywhere respectable - because the original paper was not deemed good enough to publish (not even to arxiv). No (negative) critique can be worth anything if the original if worth nothing.
-
The input power X1/3 was debunked, in my opinion (and yes, I did follow all of the twists and turns of that debate back in the day).
How was this debunked?
The Lugano result indeed does not need an input power mismeasurement, given the favorable errors achievable with a wrong emissivity setting.
But there still is the unexplained 6:1 ratio of "Joule heating" between experiment and dummy run, versus a 2:1 ratio of declared input AC powers: for this a reversed clamp is an easier explanation than a three-fold drop in resistance, and compatible with the waveform in the infamous figure 5.
The Lugano report mentions the initial attempt to use thermocouples, soon removed due to the alleged unreliable contact to the ridged reactor body: in this initial phase a reversed clamp would come handy. Then when relying on IR camera only for the long-term test, such a gross mistake can be corrected, replaced by a (self)deceiving emissivity setting.
