Celani et al: Improved stability and performance of surface-modified Constantan wires, by chemical additions and unconventional geometrical structures.

  • I browsed it and it seems to me Celani's extremely long and mostly uninformative report does NOT say he used multiple wires to increase output.


    How moronic. It says exactly the opposite ...A classic example of commenting on something you haven't bothered to read.


    Your sarcasm is hardly appropriate since you seem to always misinterpret what you read... assuming you read it at all instead of just excreting your uninformed opinion about it.


    Hahahaaar, really? Sounds more like your M.O. to me.

  • More evidence of your obvious pathology is shown by fact that last week JulianBianchi told you Celani uses multiple wires right here.


    I really don't think any more comment needs to be made... other than, your lack of insight into your condition does not bode well for you.

  • Quote

    Figure 27

    We observed that the new set-up (2016 Vs 2017), featuring 4 times more knots and twice the surface of constantan wires, is about 30% more efficient on AHE emission. For instance, supposing valid the power emitted combining the Stefan-Boltzmann law (proportional to T^4) and Newton dissipation (at 10 W*K*m2), at 70 W of electric input power, the thermal power emitted are respectively 115 W and 150 W, using as gas a mixture of Xe and D2 at 0.1 bar of pressure: shown in Fig.6.


    OK, so this is the contents of slide 27. Do you Zeus, with your obviously superior powers of observation (ROTFWL) see a mention of added wires? Apparently Celani KNOTTED the wires. Perhaps he will tell you why!


    BTW, thanks for making my point for me about your,,, uh... deficiencies.

  • We observed that the new set-up (2016 Vs 2017), featuring 4 times more knots and twice the surface of constantan wires, is about 30% more efficient on AHE emission. For instance, supposing valid the power emitted combining the Stefan-Boltzmann law (proportional to T^4) and Newton dissipation (at 10 W*K*m2), at 70 W of electric input power, the thermal power emitted are respectively 115 W and 150 W, using as gas a mixture of Xe and D2 at 0.1 bar of pressure: shown in Fig.6.


    OK, so this is the contents of slide 27. Do you Zeus, with your obviously superior powers of observation (ROTFWL) see a mention of added wires? Apparently Celani KNOTTED the wires. Perhaps he will tell you why!



    Pffft... No it isn't. Does baby need spoonfeeding? How embarrassing. I imagine you'll be feeling pretty dumb when you realise:

    (a) your mistake,

    (b) this is further hard proof of your inability to fully read a document that you choose to comment on.


    Truly laughable. You really are a parody of yourself, aren't you?

  • Apparently Celani KNOTTED the wires.

    Yes, he did. Surely this increases the amount of wire and surface area, just as adding another wire would do? For some reason he thinks that the knots themselves enhance the reaction, but whether they do or not, they must increase the length of wire compared to wires with no knots.

  • Come on Jed, Celani both knotted the wires (old news) and increased the count. Don't get swallowed by the cretinous hole Yugo is digging for himself.


    And as an aside, this is why I know Yugo is lying when he says things like:


    What could be more interesting than a whole new source of clean energy for the world?... ...I would love for LENR to be true. What could be more interesting?


    Because he isn't even "interested" enough to read a 35 page document written in large text. Despite several people telling him it contains reference to a long-term supposed "interest" of his: Celani increasing his wire count.


    It's pathetic.



  • Actually, the information was NOT in figure 27 as alleged. There are comments elsewhere in the disorganized and incoherent paper about using 4 wires. Still not enough wires. The so-called paper has as at least a many typos as Maine has ticks but to be fair, some seem to be translation issues. If they get that squared away, maybe it will get more respect.


    ETA: actually seems to be a lot of missed characters somewhere along the line, at least on my screen. Example:




    Jed: I was thinking and had suggested a geometry where ten, twenty or more wires were arranged around and close to a single central heating wire, minimizing the heater power and GREATLY increasing the output power, possibly to the level of self sustenance. I also thought calorimetry not dependent on measurement of mainly the radiated component of the heat produced would be much better.

  • Excellent Mary, as I said before, I was waiting to be enlightened by your insightful and rational comments on Celani's work - and you've gone one step further and even spell-checked it. A great example of the true nature of your "interest" in the field I feel.


    I guess we'll just have to take your word about there being "not enough wires" seeing as how you neglected to justify it with even a single syllable of argument. No doubt it would just have exposed another example of you 'moving the goalposts'... But let's gloss over that fact, as it seems we should probably celebrate you finishing a LENR paper without complaining that the graphs were too complicated for you to understand.


    Another minor niggle:


    Actually, the information was NOT in figure 27 as alleged


    No-one said anything about figure 27.


    Go to slide 27 of the presentation linked above.


    Where you would have found details of what you were looking for (See, your reading comprehension really is severely lacking). There's also more on slide 21, in case you neglected to read that too.

  • Are you for real?


    This is what happens when you quickly scan a document instead of taking your time reading it properly.


    The section you are quoting from is entitled 'NOTES'. It's the very last page.


    You damn fool. Pretty fortunate you withheld your invective, eh?


    Might have looked a bit silly.

  • You want slide 27, which can be found hiding directly underneath slide 26.


    Also, as I mentioned before, slide 21 too ...This can be found 21 pages from the start of the document, if you don't count the title page.



    EDIT: this disturbing insight into Mary's modus operandi will be continued in The Playground, as it is not even close to being a pastiche of the "insightful and well-reasoned" scientific comments I had originally thought Mary would be providing us with.


    :huh:

  • Zeus46


    Celani shows gains of 2 in the scale of tens of watts. 70W anomalous excess power is not nothing. But do you understand what the anomaly is? when integrated over time does it result in an energy gain? If so is the mass of the materials involved sufficiently small to say that this cannot simply be a chemical effect, in which case the excess heat is there but not the anomaly?



  • Celani shows gains of 2 in the scale of tens of watts. 70W anomalous excess power is not nothing. But do you understand what the anomaly is?


    I would say that the supposed excess heat (or power, depending on the graph) is the anomaly - I don't understand the cause of it, and Celani doesn't really try to explain it, just presenting it as 'something odd'. Which it is... What conventional explanation would explain the increase in heat, given the alteration of parameters as described on slides 21 & 27?


    Another anomaly is shown on slides 23-26... The wire's resistance appears to behave opposite to expected, which I also find interesting.


    when integrated over time does it result in an energy gain? If so is the mass of the materials involved sufficiently small to say that this cannot simply be a chemical effect, in which case the excess heat is there but not the anomaly?


    He seems to be presenting an overview of his work, there's not enough information presented in the slides to say what length of time the experiment was over.


    So ultimately, I say 'interesting but unproven'.

  • Zeus46


    The problem is, if he doesn't bother to write a couple lines of summary, like:

    • the anomaly produced X joules of heat in excess of the input electrical energy;
    • the loss of mass of wires, glass etc was Y grams
    • X/Y kJ/kg energy density is way more than expected from chemical reactions

    then it is hard to decide if it is interesting, all the more if it is a summary of years of work.


    Edit: I haven't followed Celani's work so it may be that he takes it for granted (being Asti a LENR conference) that the energy densities are closer to nuclear than anything chemical, albeit on a smaller scale than Rossi's infamous claims. If you or others know of and could provide a link to a reference where this type of result is claimed I will appreciate it.


  • He's using about 0.03g constantan in the four wire bundle, so things start getting interesting after a minute or so at 35W excess, ignoring the wire's cladding. But what you say is correct IMO. Note the resistance anomaly isn't so hazy, but again he doesn't describe his set up. Maybe the accompanying talk was more enlightening?


    Celani's papers might be on lenr-canr.org, or there's a couple here: https://www.iscmns.org/idxjcmns.htm

  • Zeus46


    From your reference, page 36:


    "We note that nearly all of the chemical reactions produce at most 4.5 eV of energy. In our experiment, the effect lasted for several weeks and its integrated value is very much higher than the product of chemical energy times the amount

    of material involved. "



    Well. I can't deny this is exactly what I was asking for. What is puzzling is that Celani openly said he started investigating these materials because he suspected they were used by Rossi in early collaboration with Ahern. Now if Rossi is simply and plainly a charlatan then something is wrong.

    In turn if nothing substantial is wrong in Celani's claim, then one should rethink part of the judgement on Rossi.

    I say "part" because the deceptions are there, but could be part of a scheme aiming at a greater good, which could explain some help he received from people one would never suspect to play a scam.



    Big IF.

  • I don't think it's controversial (unless according to the most reactionary of fools) to say Rossi might have been able to demonstrate some kind of small table-top effect. Same as Celani and Piantelli. But then I also recall Ahern calling Rossi out as a bullshitter around the time he launched his court case. Or at least someone purporting to be Ahern did.