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?

  • 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.

  • 5.7 torr (0.0075 atm) fair light vacuum. Good enough for glow discharges if the electrodes are spaced right.

  • 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

  • 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". :)


  • 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.

  • Quote

    maryyugo wrote: And no, a bucket of water won't evaporate overnight. Where did Shanahan say that exactly?

    Jed Rothwell wrote: Right here, and many, many times in the past:


    Without even going to the merits of the case, this illustrates the sort of misquote Jed constantly perpetrates. I have no idea why. Shanahan said it could have evaporated in something like 10 days. If you want to discuss this, then do. But nobody said overnight and your insisting on it won't make it true. As I said, typical Jed Rothwell misquote. Finally, to the merits of the case, the bucket was not under observation so nobody knows what ACTUALLY happened to it during the time period. And this is all ridiculously irrelevant because to prove the point, the experiment could have and SHOULD have been repeated.

  • Quote

    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.


    There is nothing to ponder. The suggestion that anyone would want to harm Rossi to prevent his invention from resulting in products is beyond silly. And suppose it were true in some alternative universe, Rossi could simply write up the secrets, put them in a safe deposit box somewhere and give keys to a half dozen or so trusted people in secret. So the only part of the statement which makes sense is that nobody takes him seriously. After six years, does anyone still wonder why? Or are we drowning in cheap isotopes, robotic factories and mass produced ecats yet? And I didn't notice? And all the other dumb stuff Rossi claimed he had already made.


    And Alan, if you know Levi so well, maybe you can ask him to find out what Rossi's busy "certificators" have been doing all these years and how they are progressing.

  • Shanahan said it could have evaporated in something like 10 days.


    So I've been piddling around with the equation bocijn found, using 10% relative humidity and 1 m/s air movement over the bucket for the first datum that JedR supplied in his into he referenced (10L evap'd in 1 day, but starting at 100C). The 100C starting point means we have to assume some sort of cooling curve, if we assume no CF heat. I assumed an average temp of 60C. I got the time down to ~1.75 days, still longer than 1 but definitely in the ballpark. At this point I'd need to try to calculate the heat available from oxidizing the stored hydrogen in the cell to see if that would hold the T up longer than just a slow cool. But to get serious, I need the actual room temp, relative humidity, airflow, bucket dimensions, cooling profile, etc. All of which aren't available. As you said though, if Mizuno *really* thought he had something, he should have repeated it.

  • Maybe Dewey can shed light on why in hell Darden allowed Penon to be "ERV" instead of using some well known professor in a reputable university, the head of a major test lab, some sort of nuclear energy expert or just about ANYONE else.


    Because nobody in the 'respectable science' world would touch that job with a bargepole. There are considerable reputational risks no matter what you come up with.

  • 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.

    I disagree. McKubre, I and others were careful in our evaluations. We did not dismiss them. I have said repeatedly that the second set of experiments were not bad, and no major error has been found in them as far as I know. However, we raised many questions about Lugano. Legitimate, important, scientific questions, such as "what color was the reactor incandescence?" They never answered these questions. They darn well should have. An academic scientist has an obligation to answer such questions from people like McKubre, and even from me.


    If the reactor incandescent color was the one shown in the photograph, then there was no excess heat, and their estimate of the temperature was wrong by a huge margin. Perhaps that is not the case. Perhaps that photo was taken before peak power was achieved, or the digital camera did not record the correct color. However, if the temperature was as claimed, reactor would have been a blinding white light, which they would have observed. They need to set the record straight on that. Or they need to retract the paper.


    Obviously, that is not the only technical issue that needs to be addressed.

  • Because nobody in the 'respectable science' world would touch that job with a bargepole.

    That is not true. I.H. found two experts who did an excellent job analyzing the test: Murray and Smith. They wrote detailed analyses which you can read in the trial docket. There are thousands of other highly qualified experts who would have done an excellent job at a reasonable cost.


    Murray and Smith are more engineers than scientists, but they are way more scientific than Rossi. In any case, they did a better job than most professional academic scientists would have done.

  • Quote

    Because nobody in the 'respectable science' world would touch that job with a bargepole. There are considerable reputational risks no matter what you come up with.


    What Jed said. Plus major test labs could have provided people under contract and there would be absolutely no reputational issue. Nobody gives a slug what they test or don't.


    Quote

    Rossi very deceptively and underhandedly backdoor'd Penon in TWICE. Misrepresentation across the board until he got where he could claim his man on the scene. Sad but entertaining watching the same script run yet again.


    Maybe so but Darden must bear much of the blame for not acting against it. It's hard to understand why he would allow it. But then, it is hard to understand why he would go along with a completely stupid and unnecessary one year test of a collection of silly subunits which would be much more easily and better tested individually. He had staggeringly bad advice or he didn't listen to his advisers. Or does he make decisions like that on his own?

  • But to get serious, I need the actual room temp, relative humidity, airflow, bucket dimensions, cooling profile, etc. All of which aren't available.

    You do not need any of that. That is complete bullshit. Any sane person knows that a bucket of water does not evaporate overnight unless there is a source of heat in it. If you don't believe that, put a bucket of water into a room and see what happens.


    If you want to evaluate approximately how much energy the cell produced, use the heat of vaporization. However this will be a lower bound estimate, because Mizuno did not know what time at night the bucket was empty. It might have sat for hours after the water was evaporated to a level below the cell. If the water had been replenished in the middle of the night, much more water might have been evaporated.


    As for for the bucket dimensions and cooling profile, it is an ordinary round plastic bucket. They are the same the world over. You can easily get a similar bucket and do your own cooling profile. You can also look up the average temperature in Sapporo CORRECTION in March. As I said, Japanese National University laboratories in those days had no central heating and the rooms were not heated except with gas heaters in rooms when people were present. So the rooms got cold. Students and profs. usually wore sweaters and sometimes overcoats inside, in labs and lecture halls. So you can estimate the temperature was around 10°C, and there would be no heaters or fans running overnight.


    (Actually there were two buckets, as described in the text.)


    (I know about conditions in Japanese National Universities because I attended one, and I have spent a lot of time in other ones, including the lab where this event took place. That building was torn down years ago. The replacement may have central heating.)


    *** I said this was January. It was another national holiday in March. Still cold. ***


    As you said though, if Mizuno *really* thought he had something, he should have repeated it.

    Heat after death tests were repeated hundreds of times, 16 at at time, by Fleischmann and Pons. They were far better instrumented and documented than this. You refuse to look at them or acknowledge them, but that does not make them go away.


    The cathodes were much smaller so the heat after death did not last as long, but the power levels were about the same.