"Probably cold rolling their own electrodes from thicker sheets/ingots.
Ultimately helps to give them more control over the electrode’s crystal structure."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epja/i2010-10937-7
Clearance Items
-
-
Of course they do. Otherwise the house of cards you built will fall apart...
Also you need some excuse that makes your distant second hand opinion on the matter seem more valuable to your audience than the first hand experience of the swedes, right?
No excuse needed. Sometimes dispassionate reflection and analysis can lead to a better perspective on matters. Many here have paid attention to the pages of detailed quantitative work (before your time) in challenge that make the watertight case against their conclusions being correct. You could start by reading and understanding (no more than high school math + physics enough to understand power spectrums) TC's paper?
Re house of cards. Projection?
-
No excuse needed. Sometimes dispassionate reflection and analysis can lead to a better perspective on matters. Many here have paid attention to the pages of detailed quantitative work (before your time) in challenge that make the watertight case against their conclusions being correct. You could start by reading and understanding (no more than high school math + physics enough to understand power spectrums) TC's paper?
Re house of cards. Projection?
There is a one fundamental and huge difference between the swedes first hand experience and your anonymous rantings. They have "skin in the game" (as of the excellent book by N Taleb). As far as I know, you do not. Which makes it possible for you to write anything without accountability and taking any consequence of it. This fact influence the weight that should be put on your (or TCs or anyone else, except Dewey - we know where his skin is...) arguments and for my analysis of the situation it is obvious whom to trust.
-
There is a one fundamental and huge difference between the swedes first hand experience and your anonymous rantings. They have "skin in the game" (as of the excellent book by N Taleb). As far as I know, you do not. Which makes it possible for you to write anything without accountability and taking any consequence of it. This fact influence the weight that should be put on your (or TCs or anyone else, except Dewey - we know where his skin is...) arguments and for my analysis of the situation it is obvious whom to trust.
Don't you think trusting those with a personal interest in the outcome, above those analysing it more objectively, cuts both ways?
Normally that would matter. In Rossiworld where no-one is allowed any information except those personally interested and fully on board with Rossi the dangers are glaring...
IH were the only people to break this magic circle, and look what happened to them.
-
IH were the only people to break this magic circle, and look what happened to them.
Yes, they joined another one.
-
You could start by reading and understanding (no more than high school math + physics enough to understand power spectrums) TC's paper?
I note with interest that TC - much like the Swedes - hasn’t yet responded to the pointing out of certain errors/clarifications to his paper (ie. improvements to the view factor).
It’s a shame that TC hasn’t been seen for a while, so perhaps someone else with a good understanding of his python script could add in the revised VF numbers, and see what it spits out. Might be interesting.
-
Finer-tuned surface area and view factors may improve power estimates of the Lugano device somewhat, but do nothing for the conflation of spectral and total emissivity for the IR camera setting, by which the temperature of the Lugano reactor was determined. Every independent test done with IR and alumina, and alumina-like ceramic materials, has demonstrated the serious error, amounting to an overestimate of several hundred degrees of the temperatures reported in the Lugano report. Fine tuning of some parameters will not appreciably mitigate the grossly over-reported temperatures.
-
For sure. I’m not suggesting we’ll be back up to COP 3.6 (or whatever it was).
But COP 1.5 might be fun.
-
Zeus46 ,
We can never get it to COP anything within reasonable errors, since the errors are so rampant and large. We can guess all day at ways to fix it, but at the end of the day, it is almost all guesses. Maybe if the IR camera file, the PCE data file, photos of all the wiring (end to end, active and blank runs), samples of the Rods and Reactor fins, samples of the paint on the reactor, etc. turned up, we could make really good guesses.
But all that stuff is lost, hidden, or destroyed. Just like one would expect of one of the world's most important LENR tests, no?
-
I note with interest that TC - much like the Swedes - hasn’t yet responded to the pointing out of certain errors/clarifications to his paper (ie. improvements to the view factor).
It’s a shame that TC hasn’t been seen for a while, so perhaps someone else with a good understanding of his python script could add in the revised VF numbers, and see what it spits out. Might be interesting.
Yeah, its kind of telling he disappeared the second somebody put a tiny little bit of his skin in the game... It's really easy to say things when theres no accountability... Not really the same thing when a Israeli security person has a "chitchat" with you and your rabbi (Levi) or when you and your boss maybe are receiving strange mails and suggestions about career opportunities, etc etc. In this story Levi, the swedes, incl Mats and now definitely Gullstrom stand out as those with balls (To be clear, I do respect for Dewey and Jed a bit too - although they seem merely to be kept in the game to trash Rossi and the swedes now - not to supply anything new )
-
Finer-tuned surface area and view factors may improve power estimates of the Lugano device somewhat, but do nothing for the conflation of spectral and total emissivity for the IR camera setting, by which the temperature of the Lugano reactor was determined.
I am still not convinced that they interchanged spectral in band emissivity for total emissivity.
All calculations I did over the years on the data of the Lugano report did not support that they made that error.
If we can determine the rod stacking and thus determine the correction factor for the convective heat of the rods we have everything in place to recalculate the dummy run and see what that brings.
We have two possibilities, if the applied power matches about the total convective and radiated power, then it seems unlikely that the measured temperatures where wrong.
If the calulations do not match then we can do the same calculation with corrected temperatures for the possible emissivity error and see if the calculations in that case will match and confirm the emissivity error.
The calculated answers will be a strong indication if the emissivity error was made or not (At least for the dummy run)
-
Zeus46 ,
We can never get it to COP anything within reasonable errors, since the errors are so rampant and large. We can guess all day at ways to fix it, but at the end of the day, it is almost all guesses. Maybe if the IR camera file, the PCE data file, photos of all the wiring (end to end, active and blank runs), samples of the Rods and Reactor fins, samples of the paint on the reactor, etc. turned up, we could make really good guesses.
You’re overthinking this... And apparently saying that Clarke’s papers is worthless. I disagree.
If we can determine the rod stacking and thus determine the correction factor for the convective heat of the rods we have everything in place to recalculate the dummy run and see what that brings.
If the proportion of energy leaving the system due to convection from the rods that great, that it merits such fine analysis? I assume modelling them as a triangle would be fine?
-
Is the proportion of energy leaving the system due to convection from the rods that great, that it merits such fine analysis? I assume modelling them as a triangle would be fine?
It is about errors.
You want to make the error band of your calculations as small as possible and that, in my opinion, warrants the fine analysis.
-
SParg### - The R'ster has soiled himself. His trolls and SPs throw occasional mis-informed / false punches and will continue to get hit back twice as hard.
-
It is about errors.
You want to make the error band of your calculations as small as possible and that, in my opinion, warrants the fine analysis.
true, but at some stage it descends into Analysis Paralysis... Best to focus on reducing the big errors, and spend less time on the proportionately smaller ones.
I bet less than 5% of the total energy balance is convected from the insulating rods, so an error of 5% vs 50% for that, matters little IMO.
-
I note with interest that TC - much like the Swedes - hasn’t yet responded to the pointing out of certain errors/clarifications to his paper (ie. improvements to the view factor).
It’s a shame that TC hasn’t been seen for a while, so perhaps someone else with a good understanding of his python script could add in the revised VF numbers, and see what it spits out. Might be interesting.
Zeuss - such (small) adjustments do not in any way validate his conclusions nor methodology. However, it remains possible for others to publish additional work on this topic (as TC did). Personally, I'd welcome that: if rigorous and significant. Go for it.
Here are my reasons for not commenting much on this additional analysis.
- Both the Lugano guys (and therefore TC, who followed them) took the wrong diameter for the reactor
- This does make a significant difference to the power equation, but not such as to take it outside the broad bounds of uncertainty cited by TC
- There are uncertainties in trying to decode exact results from the info given in the paper in any case
- The key feature that the claimed "acceleration in COP" indicating some temperature dependent reaction and not easily explained by other (large) errors goes away is unaffected by this analysis.
- Once we get to the area of trying to estimate heat lost by rods more precisely I'm unwilling to go there, because I don't trust the data enough, there are too many uncertainties for example with convection.
- Generally, I'd go with Paradigmnoia, who seems to have the bit between his teeth re this.
Regards, THH
-
true, but at some stage it descends into Analysis Paralysis... Best to focus on reducing the big errors, and spend less time on the proportionately smaller ones.
It's not about paralysis. The thing is that if some parts of the analysis is not done properly, there will be comments (and waranted) that the result of the analysis can not be trusted.
And I am not in a hurry, do this as a hobby and as such find it a challenge to get to the details.
I bet less than 5% of the total energy balance is convected from the insulating rods, so an error of 5% vs 50% for that, matters little IMO.
Agree that it will be less then 5%. But if the error bands of the analysis with emissivity errror and without emissivity error overlap, that error can make a difference for arriving at a conclusion.
-
THH, if someone could explain in suitably dumbed-down terms (with links to the necessary programs/libraries, ta) how I can edit/compile/run TC’s python script (I have tried and failed already) I’d probably find the time to make the alterations at some point.
-
THH, if someone could explain in suitably dumbed-down terms (with links to the necessary programs/libraries, ta) how I can edit/compile/run TC’s python script (I have tried and failed already) I’d probably find the time to make the alterations at some point.
OK. Well, I know Python. The main issue if I remember is that you need Python 2.9. Download the official version. The given code should just run under 2.9 official distribution windows. If it contains graphics stuff you could delete that because it is a bit more work to get the libraries sorted out and the command line printout is enough. It is not wonderful code, with some slightly approx hacked numerical integration. You could do the whole thing better with matlab.
-
Display More
Finer-tuned surface area and view factors may improve power estimates of the Lugano device somewhat, but do nothing for the conflation of spectral and total emissivity for the IR camera setting, by which the temperature of the Lugano reactor was determined.
I am still not convinced that they interchanged spectral in band emissivity for total emissivity.
All calculations I did over the years on the data of the Lugano report did not support that they made that error.
If we can determine the rod stacking and thus determine the correction factor for the convective heat of the rods we have everything in place to recalculate the dummy run and see what that brings.
We have two possibilities, if the applied power matches about the total convective and radiated power, then it seems unlikely that the measured temperatures where wrong.
If the calulations do not match then we can do the same calculation with corrected temperatures for the possible emissivity error and see if the calculations in that case will match and confirm the emissivity error.
The calculated answers will be a strong indication if the emissivity error was made or not (At least for the dummy run)
I am shocked.
They explain explicitly that the I R camera emissivity setting was derived from the plot they made of total emissivity. The "COP" that was reported is perfectly compatible with this, when power is calculated from the greatly inflated and very erroneous temperature reported by the camera when the emissivity factor is half of what it should be, compounded by the T4 relationship of radiant power to temperature.
Optris reports that the sensitivity range for the camera that was used is the 7 to 13.5 um band, as is consistent with pretty much all LW IR cameras, due to technical reasons (lenses, bolometer design, and atmospheric absorption of IR in large ranges of the IR spectrums). Optris suggested that this type (LWIR) of IR camera be used, because they are aware that the alumina has the highest emissivity in the LWIR range. Matching the IR camera sensitivity band to the maximum emissivity range of the measured object makes for the most accurate temperature readings, when the correct emissivity is used.
