Clearance Items

  • HI guys, The Real Roger Barker here. I promise I will be on best behavior so please don't ban me.


    I have much to discuss now that I'm back. We're all excited about Rossi's QuarkX coming up no doubt.


    OK Roger. Try not to get too eggcited, because next time you will meet the mayonnaise of permanent exile.

  • No, SSC. The articles you cite all contain severe errors of method and none are truly independent of Rossi. And Levi. THAT is why they are rejected... by most of the world's entire scientific establishment that thought they were even worth a quick look.

    "most of the world's entire scientific establishment" ..... wow !! Maybe I missed a few comments .... Did NASA criticize Lugano's work? The smartest minds of MIT have released press releases in which they show their disdain for that TPR? Nature has dedicated the first page to that terrible Italian-Swedish article? Mary, you're climbing the mirrors ....... Lugano's article has been downloaded by so many people, that's true, but it has been posted on the internet, it has not had a world resonance, as you would like to believe, so it can not be rejected as you say. Many people spend a good part of their time criticizing Rossi and everything that had been written and said about his devices, but the truth is that people who have been able to test the E-Cat have expressed very positive opinions while those who criticize it have not never seen it and spits judgments on the internet. It is easy to understand who is more credible .....



  • Jed, I'll comment briefly on this. If you want more it should be on a proper thread.


    The March test is to be considered an improvement over the one performed in December, in that
    various problems encountered in the first experiment were addressed and solved in the second
    one. In the next test experiment which is expected to start in the summer of 2013, and will last about
    six months, the long term performance of the E-Cat HT2 will be tested. This test will be crucial
    for further attempts to unveil the origin of the heat phenomenon observed so far.


    [report p28]


    Therefore I'll restrict my comments to the March test, since this was considered less problematic by the authors. The COP here is lower (3 vs 8). Unexpected for a later iteration of new technology. Expected if the original COP was inflated due to errors at least partially corrected by the efforts alluded to in the above para.


    The March test has one (obvious) interpretive error and one unchecked measurement that would neatly explain the data.


    • The interpretative error comes from plot 8 and the comment previous to it about the temperature not following a typical exponential decay curve. That is based on the assumption that there is a single thermal time constant between the heater and the temperature measurement. In a more realistic distributed heat capacity system you would expect exactly the form of curve seen, as material in between the heat source and the sensor heats and cools.
    • The unchecked measurement comes form the input power measurement. 3 phase power is susceptible to mis-measurement in a number of simple ways. For example, from having a single clamp reversed, or a conflation of phase power with total power. Both these errors deliver X1/3 error on input side that would nicely generate the COP=3 found in the March test.



    Some indirect evidence that the report authors considered this error mode possible can be found from the subsequent Lugano test, where power was measured on both input and output of the control box. And the conditions of the March test, unchecked, make such errors very possible.


    Also worth noting that the 6 month test considered crucial has been comprehensively shown to deliver COP ~ 1 by multiple followups both theoretical (TC) and experimental (MFMP). The slightly qualified nature of the MFMP comment is explained by an erroneous assumption they made that I documented on a previous thread (they broke the Optris device and then assumed that emissivity/temp relationship was always exponent 3 when in fact as I showed from the Optris software - which incorporates the affect of emissivity on the camera-given radiances - it varies as expected theoretically according to Planck curve). The data from their actual experiment supports COP ~ 1 and is very close to the theoretical results from TC.


    Looked at as a whole this sequence of apparently better validated tests (two Ferrara + Lugano) from Rossi + Fabioni + the Swedes has a resoundingly negative result, with the additional information that the Swedes are shown to be susceptible to interpretative errors that inflate COP.

  • All the authors of the articles that describe the various tests performed on the E-Cat (in Bologna, Ferrara, Lugano). You have chosen to ignore them because they deny your vision of things, but those words have been written, signed, and never denied.



    WOW, You are no halfgod, You are god and one half....


    .... following Your logic, I COULD admit:


    I believe in the flat earth, which is ruled by reptilioid-humanoid-hybrids, because thousands of people, which I never met, says so and present a lot of evidence in the www.


    ... guess, why I do not...

  • WOW, You are no halfgod, You are god and one half....


    .... following Your logic, I COULD admit:


    I believe in the flat earth, which is ruled by reptilioid-humanoid-hybrids, because thousands of people, which I never met, says so and present a lot of evidence in the www.


    ... guess, why I do not...

    You're talking about stupid sites on the internet, I was referring to articles written by university professors. But you think they are the same thing, and that says a lot about you .....

  • There have been people impersonating me on forums hence why I call myself "The Real Roger Barker"

    How does that help? An impersonator could just as easily call himself "The Real Roger Barker" as anything else.


    I suppose the only way to avoid impersonation is to establish an unquestionable identity in the real world that anyone can confirm. For example, you can create a web and put your name, address and telephone number at the bottom of each page, like this:


    http://lenr-canr.org/


    Various high tech proposals for establishing a fool-proof online identity have been proposed, based on trapdoor mathematical functions, but I do not think they have been widely implemented.

  • OMG, you mean YOU are the REAL Jed Rothwell? Do people sign up on the internet to impersonate you? I suppose that would make you a double celebrity...

  • OMG, you mean YOU are the REAL Jed Rothwell? Do people sign up on the internet to impersonate you?

    Not as far as I know. I haven't heard about it, but the Internet is large.


    Here's the thing, though. Having real world connections can reduce this problem, or prevent it. For example, as I mentioned, my telephone number e-mail address and street address are at my web site. So, anyone can call me and say hello and did you write this or that.


    I wouldn't actually care if someone impersonated me. But if you saw someone do that, you did care, and you wanted to confirm it was not me, you could just call and ask.


    When the person you want to check is cooperative, there is probably some clever way to verify an identity by e-mailing to the person's known e-mail address. That is how web site password changes are made these days.


    Google should think about offering identification verification for people who want it.

  • Hmmm, ECW is a highly censured website. I do not post there as they don't like LENR being questioned. The best website for LENR discussion was ECN. A pity it was shutdown. Many posters from LENR forum posted there. In fact ECN accumulated tens of thousands of quality posts. I'd sneak in an ode or two but most of the time I just enjoyed watching the regulars go at it. Very interesting to watch ...

  • ThIS POST AND THE 2 AFTER IT MOVED FROM THE 'Pointless Discussion on ECW' thread which is now empty and closed. A number of other posts from that thread (equally trivial) seem to have vanished into cyberspace. Apologies -it was the software what done it. Alan.



    Hmmm, ECW is a highly censured website. I do not post there as they don't like LENR being questioned. The best website for LENR discussion was ECN. A pity it was shutdown. Many posters from LENR forum posted there. In fact ECN accumulated tens of thousands of quality posts. I'd sneak in an ode or two but most of the time I just enjoyed watching the regulars go at it. Very interesting to watch ...

    ... that's true. The st..d mot.....r Acland banned me, because I was critical. But not personal. At least not to him, maybe to axil because of his connectionless brindges which he also continues to build in here, but that's not wrong in my opinion.

  • ... that's true. The st..d mot.....r Acland banned me, because I was critical. But not personal. At least not to him, maybe to axil because of his connectionless brindges which he also continues to build in here, but that's not wrong in my opinion.


    You think Frank Ackland is a Stud Motor? Weird.


    Did you post at ECN? That was the place to be! We had so much fun there. There were many high caliber posters there e.g. Popeye, Jami, NTAK, and of course our very own Mary Yugo. The conversation threads were very enthralling and you could just picture it in your mind the way they were all sitting around discussing LENR in detail. You know, really discussing it, with passion.


    It's not the same since ECN shutdown. I was very upset as I am sure many others were. I wasn't really a regular at ECN though. I was more an observer, not a participant. I preferred more 1 on 1 sessions ...

  • I am not sure ECN warrants wistful nostalgia. It, of course, began as a Rossi fan site and skeptical opinions were regularly banned by the proprietor. Eventually, he lost the faith and became completely hands-off. It became the only completely unmoderated site on the topic and, unsuprisingly, was pretty chaotic and often degenerated into lengthy abuse sessions. As Roger observed, if nothing else it certainly was entertaining at times. Over time, the population skewed heavily towards skeptics and the remaining believers were primarily the angriest hardcore Rossiphiles who apparently enjoyed the give-and-take and the experience of spending time in the lions' den. I suppose for them it was pretty much the equivalent experience to being a skeptic here.