Yes, the curves are different. The question is why and the answer isn't necessarily "LENR". And no, a bucket of water won't evaporate overnight. Where did Shanahan say that exactly?
Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions
-
-
Yes, the curves are different. The question is why and the answer isn't necessarily "LENR".
In his analysis here, Shanahan is blind to these differences. He does not even try to explain them. He simply asserts that the second curve indicates no heat, for a long list of bogus reasons.
And no, a bucket of water won't evaporate overnight. Where did Shanahan say that exactly?
Right here, and many, many times in the past:
But the key point is that Jed writes: "A bucket left by itself for 10 days in a university laboratory will not lose any measurable level of water to evaporation. "
That is nothing but an assumption based on wishful thinking. Anything other that that occurring invalidates the use of water loss as a useful measure. Of course, that was the point of my first post on this topic on spf. My examination of evaporation rate equations put out by DOE for swimming pools led me to believe that it might be possible if the ventilation and humidity characteristics were correct.He says equally ludicrous things in his crackpot theories, as you see in the response by Marwan et al.
-
maryyugo wrote:"Yes, the curves are different. The question is why and the answer isn't necessarily "LENR"."
So what is the answer for the excess capacitive heat of 500,000 Joules shown in the active reactor?
Is it because of the dangerous chemical explosion between palladium and deuterium at the extreme high pressure of 760 Pa?
-
http://e-catworld.com/2017/09/…l-sell-energy-not-plants/
This guy is hilarious! The funny stuff never stops. I wonder if he's considered professional comedy.
-
Quote
So what is the answer for the excess capacitive heat of 500,000 Joules shown in the active reactor?
You mean the ALLEGED or APPARENT excess heat. TIFIFY Don't know what "capacitive" heat is. Help me out.
-
maryyugo wrote "Help me out." Alleged Apparent TIFIFY
1.Capacitive heat is the product m c delta T.
more commonly known as "sensible heat" when used with air.
colloquially expressed by Grade 12 students as "mcat"
Sensible heat underestimates the amount of excess heat by between 20 and 30%.
2. Excess heat is not alleged.. it is calculated.TYDNFIFM
There is more heat coming out of the system (calculated by mc.deltaT.) than there is energy put in (calculated by watts times seconds.)
Excess heat is not apparent. TYDNFIFM There are no Joule eyes or sensors as far as I know.
Temperature readings, massflow ,watts and time are calculated together to find joules
MY may lackknowledge to calculate these heats...let alone the additional environmental heat that comes out
but MY is competent to allege that 760 Pa is a high pressure.
-
Maryyugo
Normally I block you.. but when you allege about Mizuno
that is another matter.
Manup or MY up
Answer this question.
Is 760 Pa a high pressure? Note: Pa = Pascals.
Yes or No?
-
Display More
Maryyugo
Normally I block you.. but when you allege about Mizuno
that is another matter.
Manup or MY up
Answer this question.
Is 760 Pa a high pressure? Note: Pa = Pascals.
Yes or No?
5.7 torr (0.0075 atm) fair light vacuum. Good enough for glow discharges if the electrodes are spaced right.
-
oldguy wrote : fair light vacuum
However on the Mizuno thread MY posted this.
MaryYugo
Manup or MY up.
Is 760 Pa a high pressure? Note: Pa = Pascals.
Yes or No?
-
What would be the deep interest of the authors of Ferrara, Bologna and Lugano? You're talking about professors from prestigious European universities who have put their signatures on articles written by them, articles that express their views and that are the fruit of the tests they did personally on the E-Cat. And your comment seems to have said they voluntarily made mistakes because they had an interest. It's a bad accusation and totally devoid of evidence. I hope I have misunderstood your thought .....
No - maybe you would "voluntarily make mistakes" but scientists are very seldom so afflicted.
However, the reason for critiques, and the requirement for replication, is that scientists are only human, and make mistakes. In this area, hope is a powerful thing. If you have a theory that will save the planet and bring you a Nobel when it is recognised of course you hope it is real. And when you have a complex experiment that shows this, it is human nature to check less carefully than when an experiment you expect to work goes wrong.
Now I'm not saying everyone does this, a good scientist will try hard not to, and we can see signs of that in the multiple Lugano checks. But here we know that Levi - who of these profs is the one responsible for the emissivity mistake that provides the inflated COP > 1, has been so not careful. When he was asked to check the error he still claimed there was none. And, as TC and others have shown, that one error is not detected by any of the Lugano checks, because of the various poor methodologies that prevented the dummy test from acting as a control, or even as a test of the emissivity method. This is fact, and I'll lead you through the technical details if you like. If you think otherwise i'd request that you back up your comments with technical detail.
So, prof from a prestigious European university or no, whether it fits your world-view or no, Levi in this specific matter suffers this specific (human) problem. He is too wedded to his own ideas and therefore does not critique them or engage with critiques from others. It is bad science.
-
So, prof from a prestigious European university or no, whether it fits your world-view or no, Levi in this specific matter suffers this specific (human) problem. He is too wedded to his own ideas and therefore does not critique them or engage with critiques from others. It is bad science.
You have zero idea about Levi or his problems or the academic politics involved. I think it very unlikely he would engage with an anonymous poster on any of these matters. Kindly refrain from further slurs on a very upright man.
-
Well, I tested it. I once again suggest everyone test it.
TC was right within a very small margin of error.
Heat up an alumina tube to glowing, use the Lugano Protocol, and get a "COP" of around 3 to 4.
Then stick a thermocouple on the tube, correct the IR camera or even IR "gun" emissivity function to the appropriate value, which very near 0.95, and voila, the IR camera temperature plummets, matches the thermocouple, and a COP of 1.0 (or very close to that) is the result when the math is done.Hello mr. Paradigmoia,
I'm just tracking how many disinformation you can spread out.
You have tested it ? Alone ? and using the same logic of this forum who was over viewing you ?
How have you verified that Alumina you used was pure ? Impure Alumina, like what is found in most alumina cements have a very different emissivity from the pure one.
Alumina cements have a very high emissivity while pure alumina does not go above 0.7 (0.64) in any case.
Remember, the Lugano group have measured the emissivity of the alumina pipes and found that this was perfectly compatible with the values found in tables.
You say you have heated up to glowing .......
How ? have you used Kanthal wires ? From where you were seeing the glowing ? pure Alumina becomes transparent at high temperature so the glowing should be from the wires if you have seen the glowing from your tube then this would suggest that yours was not pure alumina.
You say that you got a "COP around 3 to 4"
Which number please ? 3 or 4 ? and how you have used math ?
Remember that Energy is a very weak function of emissivity because emissivity appears in the conversion of bolometers signal (proportional to energy) to temperature and back to conversion from temperature to energy.
So what you refer is unrealistic and surely is due to a math error, for example the one from TC that was using two different emissivity factors one for the camera and one for the Stefan Boltzmann law.
You say that you have stick a thermoucople on the tube. How ?
Contact measure of temperature on Alumina is not trivial because Alumina is a thermal insulator and also normal thermocouples would not stand high temperature so you need quite a refined setup to do that not something that everyone can do.
You say that you adjusted the emissivity on your IR gun, this means that somehow you measured it and if you obtained a value higher then 0.7 then your material was not alumina. Note that at high emissivity the error done by TC is less important so you will ( oh what a miracle !) find a COP just near 1.
So mr Paradigmoia, for me (and also for any one with some laboratory experience) you are just mythomaniac who want to appears in the net as the hero that is the one and the only capable to make a measure. Not the Lugano team or prof. Parchkomov or any other equals you.
-
Eventually,
Even the most faithful of Rossi's followers will stop following his blog.
I suspect, after another 3-4 years of supposed tests/demos/fake customers etc
and a grand total of zero sales, factories, customers, replications Rossi will take whatever money he has scammed from whoever and just go away.
Can't wait
-
DW has declared here that Lugano "dog bone" was painted with a vanilla flat pyro-paint. Not sure if Aremco 634-AL or 643-ALP.
In the case, emissivity of 634-AL is about 0.25 ( page 15 of US20120171377.pdf).
-
From a comment made on 2017-02-07 20:55 in the "Playground" thread:
Since no one bit on the Lugano reactors question - they were made by IH in Raleigh with Durapot 810, which per Cotronics, has between 75% and 85% alumina powder in the cement, batch dependent. You then get to factor in another tidbit - the Lugano reactor was apparently painted in Lugano by either Rossi or one of the testers. Specific paint color, make and model unknown.
-
You have zero idea about Levi or his problems or the academic politics involved. I think it very unlikely he would engage with an anonymous poster on any of these matters. Kindly refrain from further slurs on a very upright man.
Alan,
You seem to have some type of communications with Levi. Do you know if he allowed any peer review; informal/formal, public or not, of their Lugano report? I know he told Lewan that he asked some colleagues about the E thing, and they thought it was fine.
-
@ Alan Smith,
You have zero idea about Levi or his problems or the academic politics involved. I think it very unlikely he would engage with an anonymous poster on any of these matters. Kindly refrain from further slurs on a very upright man.
The content of this post has been removed, since it contains nothing but thinly veiled attacks on Levi and UniBo, despite your assertions to the contrary. Do ir again and you may well be sanctioned or even banned.
-
Professor Levi and me are friendly, have been for years. As for your other comment, I don't think Levi's allowing or not allowing comes into it. Whatever any of the Lugano team say publicly will be diced, filleted, and thrown on the garbage heap no matter how carefully considered and what evidence is presented. So they say nothing. The public response so far is not particularly their fault btw, but symptomatic of the whole field since the days of F&P. It is a death-trap.
BTW, speaking of death-traps, a recent comment from somebody much closer to the action than most of us, and a post-Lugano addition to the Rossi crew. 'The only reason Andrea is still alive is the nobody rakes him seriously'. Ponder that.
-
I don't think Levi's allowing or not allowing comes into it. Whatever any of the Lugano team say publicly will be diced, filleted, and thrown on the garbage heap no matter how carefully considered and what evidence is presented.
Alan,
Except for the "thrown on the garbage heap" that sounds about like what any scientist would expect to encounter in the peer review process. Shame they did not have the fortitude to defend their testing protocol and results. Good thing most others are not so risk averse, or we would still be hunter/gatherers.
And I will ponder "the only reason Rossi is still alive is nobody rakes him seriously".
-
QuoteDisplay More
Maryyugo
Normally I block you.. but when you allege about Mizuno
that is another matter.
Manup or MY up
Answer this question.
Is 760 Pa a high pressure? Note: Pa = Pascals.
Yes or No?
bocijn persists in thinking when I spoke of high pressure and temperature, I was speaking about Mizuno's experiments. Actually, I was referring to the work Shanahan does. In context, that would be abundantly clear and if it weren't, I already highlighted this in another post. Oh, I forgot. You were supposedly blocking me. Yet you seem to respond to what I post. Go figger!
If it makes you happy, bocijn, 750 Pascals is equivalent to appx 0.007 atmospheres or 0.1PSI. Whether that is high or low is entirely irrelevant to the discussion as is most of your often tortured and cryptic prose.
While we're on the subject, you brayed on about "capacitive heating." As it happens, I never heard that term before. I know, of course, about dielectric or RF heating if that is what you meant. And what does any of this have to do with the price of eggs in Thailand, the number of cow-weeks in a hectare, or LENR? I'd apply some suitable adjectives but they'd only be censored.
