Ascoli's analysis convincingly show that the control dataset power figures came from some source other than V*I. He concludes this is from the Yokogawa. I agree, and in the context (especially the heading of the power column) this seems reasonable.
"convincingly show"
I doesn't convincingly show this given the information I have given and Jed has given on this thread.
any way.. tomorrow is another day.. need to get some kip
Buonanotte buongiorno
see below
So you have two substantive points:
In other words, the instruments read the resistance heater power correctly during a excess heat run, but they read the same power to the same resistance heater incorrectly during a control run. How would instrument know which is which? How would the resistance heater know? It cannot tell it is inside a reactor with an active Ni mesh.
Oh wait. You are saying the active run was with plasma discharge, even though we told you it is not.
Do you remember when we asked for an explanation of why the control time constant was 10X faster than the active time constant? You said that you thought this (2016) active run used internal plasma heating. I realise that this may be wrong, but you did not say so, and it makes (some) sense given the very different thermal dynamics. It was 3 years ago, you may not have been sure. If you provide definite statements as to what these two 2016 data spreadsheets are, I will happily revise what I say about it. I fully agree that if there is no plasma discharge then there is less likelihood that I*V is wrong. In that case however I*V could still be wrong if I is measured as voltage across a shunt resistor, rather than a dtaa logger current input range that has an internal (and therefore guaranteed correct) shunt. Assuming there is no external shunt (and I'd need definitive statements to assume this) I see no lack of safety, except that the different instrumentation methodology is bad practice, and weird, and therefore an amber flag to watch out because other bad practice may exist.
General point: I'm not expecting that everything you say about this stuff is correct: no-one can remember everything perfectly. But, when there is some misunderstanding due to a remark you made that turns out to have been misleading, accusing others of lying etc etc is not the best way to sort this out!
Some holes:
1. It is not possible to interface a digital meter to an analog interface.
What bigger holes could there be?
Please see my post above which addresses this. Whether the data collection from the Yokogawa is automatic, or separately downloaded and included manually on the spreadsheet, does not alter the point. The Yokogawa data is provided for the control experiment but not for the next day and otherwise identical active experiment. The difference in data source is not made explicit (though it is hinted at). That is bad practice.
Indeed. For that matter, why does any LENR device purported to make much more (x2? x5? x10?) than the input heat requirement for it to run, why does such a device stop when the electrical heat is removed? In fact, absent controlled forced cooling, why does it not thermally run away? This has long bothered me about robust (large power out, large out/in ratio) claims of LENR.
Temperature-dependent activation of excess heating does not necessarily mean that the reaction stays on once the electrical heating is removed. There are a number of different scenarios depending on the rate of passive cooling, how strong the excess heating is, and the temperature range over which the excess heating mechanism activates.
On the other hand I agree about thermal runaway. There should absolutely be a temperature threshold beyond which the excess heating turns on and rises to its own predetermined level even if there is no change in the input power. When the threshold is passed the temperature trajectory of the reactor should display some sort of upward inflection point. Once the excess heating is turned on it should be hard to turn off unless the temperature is lowered quite a bit (i.e., hysteresis).
In the summer of 2018 I explained in a number of posts the qualitative theory of how a reactor with temperature-dependent excess heat activation should react to inputs. The same theory will be relevant for the Mizuno reactor. These posts were in the Atom-Ecology thread but I cannot locate them now.
Question for the moderators .... Has the Atom-Ecology thread been removed? How do I find posts I put on it?
"convincingly show"
I doesn't convincingly show this given the information I have given and Jed has given on this thread.
any way.. tomorrow is another day.. need to get some kip
Buonanotte buongiorno
Just to reiterate this: ascoli has given his reasons - which many here will remember. The correspondence between P and V*I is exact in one case, is imprecise in the other. You have to my knowledge advanced no explanation for how the P data could be collected from the same instrument in both cases. Ascoli will perhaps post his reasons, which you have not addressed, yet again - though it seems unfair to ask him to do this!
Question for the moderators .... Has the Atom-Ecology thread been removed?
Alas, it has gone bye-bye.
On the other hand I agree about thermal runaway. There should absolutely be a temperature threshold beyond which the excess heating turns on and rises to its own predetermined level even if there is no change in the input power. When the threshold is passed the temperature trajectory of the reactor should display some sort of upward inflection point. Once the excess heating is turned on it should be hard to turn off unless the temperature is lowered quite a bit (i.e., hysteresis).
exactly and we cannot see on Mizuno test.
OK ascoli, so bear with my slowness, we have confirmed for 2016 test (2017 paper):
Control from external resistive heater - measured with Yokogawa power analyserActive from internal plasma heater - measured with V*I, V and I averaged over 5s (or so).
[And, for ascoli, evidence that both would have been measured with Yokogawa, but the spreadsheets for the active test contain V*I in the power column (in addition to V and I columns) ]
Jed, I'm calling you out on this. ...
In the meanwhile, JR has answered to your call in this way (emphasis added):
It is not right because you made it up. The Yokogawa power analyzer was never used to record power with this series of experiments, only to confirm it. As I said.
You should explain to us how to interface a digital instrument to the HP A/D board. As I said, the spreadsheet comes directly from the A/D board. Do you think the Yokogawa has an outlet that converts the measured power level to a voltage? That would be a retro design! A digital instrument that produces an analog voltage. It would greatly reduce accuracy and precision.
Given the utter absurdity of your notion that a digital instrument can be read by an analog to digital interface, I would not call your allegations and calling me out "sinister." "Asinine, idiotic, utter ridiculous" come to mind. This is not effective trolling. You need to up your game.
He is accusing you (and me) of lying and trolling, but everyone here can see who is making things up.
We are talking of the 120W tests reported on figures 27 and 28 of the JCMNS article (1). Figure 13 in the same document shows that a "Power analyzer" was connected to a "Data logger" and to a "PC". The text at page 10 is more explicit (emphasis added):
"The rectangles in the lower left of the figure represent the input power supply, the power input analyzer (Yokogawa, PZ 4000), the data logger (Agilent, 34970A), and the PC for data acquisition. […] Data from six reactor temperatures, electric power to the test reactor that is processed by the power-meter, electric currents and voltages for the power supply of the blower, and the temperatures of the inlet and the outlet air flows were collected by a data logger and recorded to a PC every 5 s."
Do you see? The referenced Mizuno's article and the quoted JR post say two opposite things. It follows that one of these two versions, the red or the blue one, is FALSE.
Considering the prominent role played by the protagonists since 1989, this issue about the 120 W spreadsheets is telling us a lot about the methods used to promote the field in these 30 years of CF history.
Alas, it has gone bye-bye.
Well then I am steamed because I spent many hours producing a series of about a half-dozen posts laying out how modern dynamical systems theory can be used to understand the behaviour of a reactor equipped with a emperature-activated source of endogenous (i.e., excess) heat).
Aside from the loss of my posts, do you mean to say that all of the public claims on that thread made by the Alan Smith and Russ George about their Atom-Ecology formula are now permanently gone?
We are talking of the 120W tests reported on figures 27 and 28 of the JCMNS article (1). Figure 13 in the same document shows that a "Power analyzer" was connected to a "Data logger" and to a "PC". The text at page 10 is more explicit (emphasis added):
"The rectangles in the lower left of the figure represent the input power supply, the power input analyzer (Yokogawa, PZ 4000), the data logger (Agilent, 34970A), and the PC for data acquisition. […] Data from six reactor temperatures, electric power to the test reactor that is processed by the power-meter, electric currents and voltages for the power supply of the blower, and the temperatures of the inlet and the outlet air flows were collected by a data logger and recorded to a PC every 5 s."
Jed, it does seem that the published data on these tests is as I and ascoli thought you had said (Yoko was used), rather than what you now say (Yoko was not used).
Further, the published data says that the Yoko data is collected by the data logger, though I'd accept that this might be a shorthand for collected by a separate data logger internal to the Yoko and added manually. Confusing, though, so you can't really blame ascoli for his ideas.
Aside from the loss of my posts, do you mean to say that all of the public claims on that thread made by the Alan Smith and Russ George about their Atom-Ecology formula are now permanently gone?
I can read the thread, but do not think you can. Look left side of main page under "Forum List". If you do not see "Internal Dumping Ground" at very bottom, you do not have access. If not, then I can ask one of the Admins how to retrieve your posts. You put a lot of effort into, so the least we could do is give them back if able.
QuoteAlas, it has gone bye-bye.
Deleting offensive messages and even closing a thread can make sense but it is a bad idea to delete threads in any forum. Doing so exhibits contempt and lack of concern for the authors who spent time and effort to contribute. It is also censorship. Censorship in a forum indicates fear of open discourse and conflicting views. Not good.
Deleting offensive messages and even closing a thread can make sense but it is a bad idea to delete threads in any forum. Doing so exhibits contempt and lack of concern for the authors who spent time and effort to contribute. It is also censorship. Censorship in a forum indicates fear of open discourse and conflicting views. Not good.
It was said earlier that a lawsuit was threatened.
Which is certainly not a positive reflection on the entire project the thread was based upon.
I can read the thread, but do not think you can. Look left side of main page under "Forum List". If you do not see "Internal Dumping Ground" at very bottom, you do not have access. If not, then I can ask one of the Admins how to retrieve your posts. You put a lot of effort into, so the least we could do is give them back if able.
I don't see the "Internal Dumping Ground" link.
It would be great if I could retrieve these posts. They are relevant for the Mizuno heater. The posts I am interested in would have been put up in the summer of 2018 and are easily recognizable because they contain hand-drawn plots illustrating concepts I was outlining. It is the plots I am most interested in.
Jed questioned how the Yoko and Agilent data could be combined:
Given the utter absurdity of your notion that a digital instrument can be read by an analog to digital interface, I would not call your allegations and calling me out "sinister." "Asinine, idiotic, utter ridiculous" come to mind. This is not effective trolling. You need to up your game.
It is not so hard:
https://www.manualslib.com/man…z4000.html?page=14#manual
and in the 2017 paper: Data from six reactor temperatures, electric power to the test reactor that is processed by the power-meter, electric currents and voltages for the power supply of the blower, and the temperatures of the inlet and the outlet air flows were collected by a data logger and recorded to a PC every 5 s.
The PZ4000 power analyser has both GP-IB and serial interfaces. Either one could be used to output data to the PC.
The Agilent 34970A can similarly be interfaced to the PC.
Thus the expectation from the 2017 paper description is that power and data logger samples are both automatically acquired by the PC and stored there, for output in CSV etc form as a spreadsheet.,
Both instruments can also log data for later batch download, in which case the power and other measurements would need to be integrated manually. That is a less good match to the description in the paper, where all data acquisition is controlled by the PC, but the same point applies if the spreadsheet measurements are manually integrated: why the undocumented difference in methodology?
THH
PS - Jed - still waiting for the retraction of your comment about me (and ascoli) lying about this stuff.
I don't understand your point about 5W and 120W power difference. I don't know how you think this comment applies to the current matter?
The 5 watt blower data is germane..
The discrepancy btw the V*I calculated power P and the stated p
is much larger than for the 120W heater.
In sorting out an anomaly its useful to examine where it is worst.
Ascoli's belief is that the V and I values are averaged.
Ascoli's belief is that the p values are pasted from ?.. not the Pacific.
The data is consistent with these beliefs.
However .. one issue
Why is the discrepancy so much bigger (3-4x)for the 5W blower. (eg 1% vs 0.3%)
Perhaps a fresh look at fresh data would be fruitful for the LF brains trust.
Computo ergo sum..
Calcolo quindi lo sono...
Grazie
RB - stick to the topic and answer the question (heater power 2017 paper). You would do a better job if you actually read the post you are criticising. Recent copy here.
Explain the difference between exact V*I (active) and approx V*I (control) if not control comes from Yoko as per 2017 paper, active comes direct from V*I.
Trying to change the subject will not wash here.
Trying to change the subject will not wash here.
Stop trying to change the subject, THHnew.
I am exactlyon the subject of calculation discrepancy
I am trying to get answers for the data..
One needs to take all the data into account.
Perhaps the collective LF brains trust can find out
why the blower data is (3-4x )more discrepant than the heater data
The contention of Ascoli is that the heater power is pasted
Is the blower power, p , pasted too?
Computo ergo sum
Grazie
Oh Dear. Oh Dear, Oh Dear! So you are claiming another Rossiesque fiddle is behind the high excess heat results, that the excess heat input power spreadsheet was in fact much more than the data displayed? Is that the motivation behind this endless calorimetric analysis - you've found the deliberate mistake? I think this is extremely unlikely - probably just an error in translation from the Japanese versions of the spreadsheets? Furthermore, if someone was intending to fool everyone (eg like Rossi), surely they would any not leave evidence of data having been modified as you are suggesting, they wouldn't be that stupid would they?
I'm not claiming that. Nor is Ascoli.
My position: bad methodology (clearly) that makes the results less safe. The methodology was (obviously) deliberate, but I'm not claiming it was deliberately done to make the results not safe, maybe it was just to save time or whatever.
Ascoli: as me, but he thinks that maybe the Yoko power data was known to be inconsistent (as it might be with an oscillating plasma) and rather than investigate this the V*I data was used (at least I think he thinks that).
Either way, this is not comparable with Rossi, and counts as mistake not fraud.
The evidence of modification is subtle and was not noticed by anyone except ascoli, it takes about 10 pages of argument for such evidence to be accepted. And the column heading is ambiguous, so both types of data fit it. It is just very bad practice.
FYI - there is still some doubt about whether the active test used plasma heating. The 2017 paper says it did, as did Jed at one point (I think I remember this). Jed now says it did not, but maybe he will change his statement on reflection. Watch this space.
Che ore sono?
Assisi ~1.29am London ~midnight.29 am
Sometimes its good to sleep on things..
Buona notte
So, did anyone anemometer traverse test a 65 mm cylinder connected to a San Ace B97 fan?
Didn’t think so.
Anyone work out how the San Ace B97 fan that makes ~ 5 m/s airflow in a 65 mm tube manages 4 m/s at 1/2 power?
Didn’t think so.
