Clearance Items

  • @ JedRothwell,

    The fact that I am quoted in a document is no indication that I read that document.


    Which document are you talking about?


    The subject of your previous reply (*) was a comment of mine (1), which was the last thing quoted by you. Immediately thereafter you did write "I have forgotten, or I never read that."


    I just reminded you that for sure you did read my comment (1), because you quoted it in your reply (2).


    Unless you are implying that you are able to reply a comment, without reading its contents!


    (*) Clearance Items

    (1) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    (2) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

  • @ bocijn,


    Sounds very much like prior bias to me. did you actually read it?


    If you refer to one of the two hot-cat reports signed by Levi, the Ferrara's and the Lugano's reports, yes, I read them both, just one time, immediately after their respective release. In doing that I had for sure a strong prior bias, a negative one, with respect to their leading author, due to the prior examination of his 2011 report on the calorimetry of the Bologna's demo.


    What mostly struck me in the hot-cat reports was the adoption of a calorimetry technique based on the Stefan-Boltzmann's law. This method was already used by Celani and, after he presented his results in mid 2012, I already had the opportunity to see how it allows to exponentially multiply the effect of any mismeasurement.


    So, I decided not to waste my time any more in examining those reports.


  • Interesting that Celani used this same method. it is in fact perfectly good when used with surfaces that approximate grey bodies, or when properly calibrated at temperature. It is just that alumina is unusually (strikingly) temperature dependent in its total emissivity and has strongly non-grey-body characteristics that hit IR temperature measurement particularly badly.


    If Celani followed good practice IR measurement protocol, calibrating surface temperature against camera reading at all the temperatures used, I see no problem using this method.


    You could say that because it is indirect it requires a bit more care to get right than many other techniques, especially because the effective radiant surface area requires some care when estimating, with proper accounting for self-absorption and re-radiation. That estimate again needs at temperature control, or very great care.

  • I think the point that Ascoli was making (an obvious one) is that the measurement is one of temperature and the calculation of power and energy is a fourth power function of the temperature. Thus, any small error along the way, from the thermal camera itself or because of errors in calibration or emissivity assumptions, those errors are magnified to their fourth power in the result. It is a shitty method, in fact, if you have anything else. And, as I noted many times before, there is something else MUCH better -- a fluid cooled calorimeter which can be operated at the same temps as the hot cat,


    https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…te-calorimetria-a-flusso/ (use Google translate, it works fine with this paper)


    Finally, again it needs to be noted, to prove that Rossi and Levi really have a discovery instead of a scam, all that is necessary is to rerun the experiment which gave the best results ever for an ecat -- the one by Levi which, sadly, he refused to give raw data for and refused even Dr. Brian Josephson email request to repeat with proper calibration and documentation. Odd that Levi would do that and not even reply to Josephson, don't you think?


    http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3108242.ece


    IMO, all of the above casts huge doubts about Levi's credibility. If you think not, why not?


    I only recycle this because I keep hearing how persuasive the hot cat is and in particular, Levi's report about it. And that keeps getting recycled.


    Jed doesn't see any errors in Levi's results but other people see lots of POTENTIAL errors. And of course, nobody other than Levi, Rossi and perhaps Penon, had access to the power input system and the output power measurement devices. The credibility of the papers relies on the credibility of the participants.

  • @ THHuxleynew,


    Interesting that Celani used this same method.


    That's probably where the idea of switching from the LT Ecat to the HotCat came from.


    Quote

    it is in fact perfectly good when used with surfaces that approximate grey bodies, or when properly calibrated at temperature.


    A method that gives you an estimation of the heat flux proportional to the 4th power of temperature is only good for mixing up the results. Just the switching from a LT device and a mass flow calorimetry, to a HT device and such an indirect method, is quite suspicious.


    Quote


    If Celani followed good practice IR measurement protocol, calibrating surface temperature against camera reading at all the temperatures used, I see no problem using this method.


    Celani used a few thermocouples placed on the glass tube of his cell. His method was even more simple and direct than using an IR camera. Notwithstanding, MFMP got a lot of problems when they tried for a couple of years to replicate the Celani's results using his method. At the end they decided to build a mass flow calorimeter.

  • Alan Smith ,

    It is a pretty basic device, but the price point is great for the temperature range.


    Importantly, it can calculate temperatures as high as 1600 C, which is handy for basic emissivity tests. I find that the software in most IR thermometers limits the upper temperatures reported to the maximum of their rating. (ie, the Optris software only calculates temperatures as high as 1507 C with the 1500 C camera option).


    A device incapable of reporting as high as 1410 C of course will be of no use in testing (at least qualitatively) whether the correct emissivity user setting for a LWIR thermometer or camera when measuring a roughly 800 C alumina object is closer to, for example, 0.4 or to 0.95

  • I agree about price btw, there is nothing close to it, took me a lot of searching to find this bargain. ,Many similar-looking low temperature ones but this is the only high temperature version I have found.

    When you tested for the appropriate IR thermometer emissivity settings for alumina and for Durapot 810, what were your findings?

  • I haven't tried that IR thermometer yet on anything hotter than my stovetop.


    I haven't heated up anything for a while, but I'm going give it a go again soon.


    I have a 4-channel TC recorder and probably 3 TCs still in good shape.

    Just wound up a ~170 mm long, 6 mm diameter, 12 ohm Kanthal A1 heater coil, with a plan to uncoil one loop every ~39 mm, to make 4 parallel coils (wired still in series) into a roughly 5 cm square, 10 mm thick alumina block, once potted.

  • The MFMP ICCF paper contained one error. They tested the IR camera at one temperature and then assumed (erroneously) that the emissivity vs temperature relationship that they observed at that temperature would be true elsewhere. It is not (if you check the Optris software as i have done and posted here you can show that).


    They kept this error because during the testing the broke the camera.


    And because of it some of their conclusions are just wrong, though the paper still contains valuable data.

    ...


    ...


    ...


    wow, another bunch of trolldiots.


    Moved from the Playground thread. Eric

  • I predict that the benefaction around here will decrease to record lows. This demo will be a burr under the sandals of many of our tall riders: those who ride a high horse.


    Oh! Trust me, if the demo turns out too well for the taste of the deniers and the Walker like operatives they will blame the Russians... or the aliens, or whatever. I probably do not have imagination enough to visualize the kind of animal MY will blame. it will be UGLY :)


    Moved from the Rossi Blog discussion. Eric

  • It can be tempting when opinions are strong to personalize this discussion with members of this forum. But let's resist the urge to do so.


    Ahh. Keeping everyone in line are we? Keeping the flood on personalization to a narrow set of persons (swedes and italians mainly...) I guess it is perfectly ok to compare Rossi to Nigerian scammers or whatever and accuse everyone who agrees with him with any number of epithets. But only mentioning the possible interests of some moderators and their MY pets, gets posts removed. Why is that?


    Moved from Rossi blog discussion. Eric

  • Oh! Trust me, if the demo turns out too well for the taste of the deniers and the Walker like operatives they will blame the Russians... or the aliens, or whatever. I probably do not have imagination enough to visualize the kind of animal MY will blame. it will be UGLY :)


    Moved from the Rossi Blog discussion. Eric

    Sifferkoll,

    If Rossi truly has something, I am positive that 99.9% of the people here will be extremely happy. It is THIER best interest for the eCat to be all Rossi hypes it to be. I will state here and now that if Rossi truly brings a working eCat to market, I will be EXTREMELY pleased and happy. I still will not excuse his lies, they were not needed nor would I excuse anyone of blatant lying, but none the less, I would be happy.


    Now how about you? What do you say about last June's demo.... the fuzzy blue light that the new partner and customer assisted with? Rossi's sworn deposition states there was no customer or new partner and the fuzzy blue light was a joke. How do you feel about that demo that Rossi posted soley for his supporters, including you? Are you excited that he lied? Does the blue photo really meet the criteria of ANY type of test or demo?


    Now, in 16 more days, what will YOU say if the demo is of a small gadget that emits a blue light? That no confirmation is allowed. That no real test data is given. That nothing but a show of a fuzzy blue light emitting from a small rod. Will YOU say "wow"! The salvation of the energy crisis has been proven! There is NO doubt that this is the real deal!


    You are stating "if the demo turns out too well for the taste of the deniers", I am asking what is the limits to "your taste"? It seems that there is absolutely nothing that Rossi could present that will change you opinion. If he presented a hand held flashlight with a piece of blue paper over the lens, would give a big thumbs up? If all he presents is a blue light and no backing data, calibrations, protocols etc. etc. is this still all good with you? Specifics please!


    Thanks!

  • axil

    sifferkoll

    Adrian Ashfield


    Sure, guys. Rossi has lied consistently and accomplished nothing of note except various lame scams for going on forty years. And now, he is going to demonstrate not only LENR but the most spectacular embodiment of it ever conceived: a pencil sized device that makes 20W of power out of almost nothing, contains a plasma, incorporates control circuits and heat exchange, makes light and electricity as well as heat, and solves the world's energy problems with enough left over to fund children with cancer. Yah Shoore he will! You guys are absolutely hilarious.


    Well, the "lame scams" has at least generated 1000+ hateful comments from you only here, and probably many times that in other places. That is a lot of energy right there. See...


    Moved from Rossi blog discussion. Eric




  • I would say I'm as transparent as they come in this story. I do believe the demo will be a success and I will be disappointed if it's not. I do have some "skin in the game", although I do have to much other stuff to do than hanging around here 24/7, but occasionally I have some spare time... I surely hope and believe there will be more to the upcoming demo than a blue light.


    Unfortunately I do not share your view that 99,9% will be happy here. I know the say they will, but I know to much about the human psyche to understand that everyone is here for a reason, especially if posting 100s of comments - and that such a reason is very very rarely altruistic like you say. Many people have something to loose, be it invested time, money, careers, future funding or whatever. Some people I sincerely believe are here because it is their job. Consequences of a energy breakthrough such as working LENR is enormous, both economically and geopolitically. I believe mainly US military entities are watching (we know they have been on the LENR train for years), they certainly do not want to have this energy advantage in the "wrong" hands too quickly. They do not want "the other guy" having never-refuel drones too long before theirs' are flying. I believe it is in their interest to downplay the advancements and post FUD to slow down and delay as much as possible, especially when coming from hard to control independent inventors like Rossi. I believe they are pretty successful at it.


    As for Rossi and the demos and his statements I know that he sometimes is premature and are talking about his current plans as being closer to realization than they sometimes are. He is an optimist and a positive thinker. He has to be, to be able to do what he does. His grit and endurance is hard to match. About the demos I believe that for any demo or test of any kind there is always n+1 fraud scenario to be made up. I believe almost all tests have been successful in terms of energy gained. I do not believe the academic approach is the way to go. Rossi is 100% correct in that the market is the judge and that this approach makes a lot of people furious or scared. Because it is hard to control.

  • Yes, rest assured that that will happen. I suggest you keep things polite and keep the innuendo and personal attacks of other forum members to a minimum.


    Ok, so tell me Eric; where do you draw this line when it comes to accusations (criminal activities like fraud & scams and/or incompetence, etc) against Rossi, Penon, Fabiani, the Swedes, etc?


    Moved from the Rossi blog thread. Eric

  • Ok, so tell me Eric; where do you draw this line when it comes to accusations (criminal activities like fraud & scams and/or incompetence, etc) against Rossi, Penon, Fabiani, the Swedes, etc?


    This is a judgment call. This forum's etiquette does not apply to them in the same way. The relevant part of what I suggested is emphasized here:


    Quote

    I suggest you keep things polite and keep the innuendo and personal attacks of other forum members to a minimum.


    The forum team consults on and is concerned about keeping discussions of third parties civil as well. But there are few concrete rules.