ENG8 - new plasma energy system

Quote from Shane D.

Yes, we have a document. But, like you, we are still waiting for that "upcoming UL version"...as you say.

While we wait, the IEP's disclaimer states:

"The IEP’s personnel, that assisted and audited the in loco measurement process, treated all the EnergyCell system as a black box. We only did control the injected electric energy, the quantity of insufflate air and the outputted thermal energy. From that, using the relevant standard constants, we accessed the CoP values".

Question for our members, i.e. Paradigmnoia , is: can you rig a black box so that the observer can control the input/output, along with air flow, such that the observer is fooled?

Display More

The easiest person to fool is oneself. The next easiest person to fool is a fool.

I guess the real answer is that if the chain of measurements is sufficient to cross check the important measurements, then it doesn’t matter if one is a fool or being fooled, the results should be foolproof.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The easiest person to fool is oneself. The next easiest person to fool is a fool.

I guess the real answer is that if the chain of measurements is sufficient to cross check the important measurements, then it doesn’t matter if one is a fool or being fooled, the results should be foolproof.

But could you be fooled in this case, were you the IEP observer?

Quote from Shane D.

Yes, we have a document. But, like you, we are still waiting for that "upcoming UL version"...as you say.

While we wait, the IEP's disclaimer states:

"The IEP’s personnel, that assisted and audited the in loco measurement process, treated all the EnergyCell system as a black box. We only did control the injected electric energy, the quantity of insufflate air and the outputted thermal energy. From that, using the relevant standard constants, we accessed the CoP values".

Question for our members, i.e. Paradigmnoia , is: can you rig a black box so that the observer can control the input/output, along with air flow, such that the observer is fooled?

Display More

I missed the part in the report where they measure air flow somehow

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I missed the part in the report where they measure air flow somehow

You are being evasive, but suppose you could control input/output, and also the "quantity of insufflate air" as IEP says (whatever that means), could they fool someone else other than you? If so, how?

Quote from Shane D.

You are being evasive, but suppose you could control input/output, and also the "quantity of insufflate air" as IEP says (whatever that means), could they fool someone else other than you? If so, how?

Increase the air velocity with a small restriction (Venturi effect) at the measurement point, measure airflow rate distribution wrong. I did a lot of work on that and it is the easiest part to get problems with. Temperature probes in non-representative locations, air leaks, calculation errors, and assumptions of all sorts can lead to bad results. Lack of calibration, blanks, ringers, and testing the device for the best and most representative sites to measure. Changing a slight thing from blank to active run, like a cover left off, or making tea next to the air inlet…

Ed: If fooling someone is the name of the game, then the sky is barely the limit for tomfoolery. If something is real, you can test it until the Sun swallows the Earth in 4 billion years and it won’t matter. The net result will be the same. And whoever has discovered it will gladly help you show that it is not an error with whatever tests are reasonably done. That doesn’t mean that they are right. The universe has already decided that in absolute, impasionate indifference.

There are those who believe that they can influence the universe towards a result. That then infers that such a thing could be reversed and the universe might impress its will upon lowly humans or other life forms. And surely, if that were true, then the universe would impress upon us all a much better outlook upon ourselves and each other, and towards other life forms and generally push towards our better good. But the cold uncaring universe just keeps spreading out into infinity without such thing as a thought to anyone or anything. Until it spreads out so thin it goes full cycle and breaks infinity to start over again with a slightly different something-or-other, or maybe gets eaten by the giant spaghetti monster or a denizen of a pineapple under the sea. I dunno.

Quote from Kieran Cox

Well I guess we have a "document" from IEP...

Hi Kieran,

That is the "revised" IEP report. It differs, a bit, from from the version on the ENG8 website back on October 24th - which was this one:

IEP-REPORT-117-Augst-2023_signed.pdf

On September 21st, ENG8 issued a note about the retraction and revision:

ENG8 EnergiCell Q Value Revised Down.pdf

See below. The original table is on the left, the latest on the right:

Both reports are a travesty, for a variety of reasons. I'll write a bit more about this later today.

Quote from Frogfall

Hi Kieran,

That is the "revised" IEP report. It differs, a bit, from from the version on the ENG8 website back on October 24th - which was this one:

IEP-REPORT-117-Augst-2023_signed.pdf

On September 21st, ENG8 issued a note about the retraction and revision:

ENG8 EnergiCell Q Value Revised Down.pdf

See below. The original table is on the left, the latest on the right:

Both reports are a travesty, for a variety of reasons. I'll write a bit more about this later today.

Display More

How did the heat capacity error slip in? How long have they used the hot value?

All this goes to show that is never simple to perform any of these tests. Proving intention to deceive is another complete matter. Taking care of checking every possible source of error, and constrain it, is the only way to go, but with anything that requires to meassure air flow on the mix, the error bars can be huge.

Quote from Curbina

All this goes to show that is never simple to perform any of these tests. Proving intention to deceive is another complete matter. Taking care of checking every possible source of error, and constrain it, is the only way to go, but with anything that requires to meassure air flow on the mix, the error bars can be huge.

The error bars can be as messy or clean as one cares to make them with air flow, and generally everything else. Half of the automobiles on the planet (billions) measure air flow with very high accuracy and precision every moment they are turned on.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

How did the heat capacity error slip in?

Looking at the rest of the report, I would say it was simply down to incompetence (and that is being kind).

As you pointed out, there is no record of the flow rate they supposedly recorded. And if the inlet temperature was measured at a throttle point, then the venturi effect would reduce the temperature seen by the thermocouple.

Of course there is no record of the power taken by the airpump, which is all part of the system - as the unit would not work without it. As mentioned above, measuring the inlet air temperature does not allow them to ignore the pump power.

Another glaring error is in not carrying out a measured run without the arc - just with the air flowing. This would have at least shown the temperature distribution caused by the airflow itself.

Allied to the above is the issue of exit thermocouple placement. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the "vortex tube" has a natural propensity to create a radial gradation across the exit. Ideally there should have been a long diffuser between the unit and the temperature sensors - so that the exit air could mix properly. Placing thermocouples at the immediate exit, as they have done, will subject them to massive inaccuracies, depending on their position in the flow (i.e. the edge will be hot, and the centre will be cold - just from the cyclone/vortex effect).

Bizarrely, there is even a section in the report which acknowledges that very point:

Quote from the report

"Note that since the last visit, one of the thermocouples has been removed (thermocouple T3 which was in the centre of the EnergyCell outlet), leaving only 3 thermocouples, one at the inlet and two at the outlet of the cell. This thermocouple was removed because the injection of air into the cell causes a swirl effect, which will cause the temperature on the side of the cell to be higher than the temperature in the centre. Thus, it did not make sense to have a third thermocouple installed in the centre, since it would only drastically lower the average temperature at the outlet and would not translate the real value of the CoP at the end."

That quoted section above, on its own, completely invalidates the entire report.

The measurement of the electrical power going to the arc is another issue, but it isn't even worth going into that.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The error bars can be as messy or clean as one cares to make them with air flow, and generally everything else. Half of the automobiles on the planet (billions) measure air flow with very high accuracy and precision every moment they are turned on.

I said "can be". Of course you can meassure it accurately, but that requires a lot more preparation and know how than it went into this test. The use of TCs and their location, as Alan Smith eloquently points out, is yet another source of error to narrow down.

Quote from Frogfall

Looking at the rest of the report, I would say it was simply down to incompetence (and that is being kind).

As you pointed out, there is no record of the flow rate they supposedly recorded. And you are right that if the inlet temperature was measured at a throttle point, then the venturi effect would reduce the temperature seen by the thermocouple.

Of course there is no record of the power taken by the airpump, which is all part of the system - as the unit would not work without it. As mentioned above, measuring the inlet air temperature does not allow them to ignore the pump power.

Another glaring error is in not carrying out a measured run without the arc - just with the air flowing. This would have at least shown the temperature distribution caused by the airflow itself.

Allied to the above is the issue of exit thermocouple placement. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the "vortex tube" has a natural propensity to create a radial gradation across the exit. Ideally there should have been a long diffuser between the unit and the temperature sensors - so that the exit air could mix properly. Placing thermocouples at the immediate exit, as they have done, will subject them to massive inaccuracies, depending on their position in the flow (i.e. the edge will be hot, and the centre will be cold - just from the cyclone/vortex effect).

Bizarrely, there is even a section in the report which acknowledges that very point:

That quoted section above, on its own, completely invalidates the entire report.

The measurement of the electrical power going to the arc is another issue, but it isn't even worth going into that.

Display More

My thoughts on a mild Venturi effect was that the apparent air flow rate could be measured with high accuracy but not actually measuring a representative velocity zone, more than trying to cool a TC. If the air temperature has stabilized in the outlet then the air velocity shouldn’t affect the temperature at the thermocouple meaningfully.

My coolest invention for the Mizuno-style mass air flow calorimeter I built was a velocity diffuser in the outlet that left the air flow going very smoothly at the exit. It has a wider chamber that the inlet of the outlet pipe entered partly into, an internal gap of about 20 cm, and then the final outlet pipe exited from partly inside the chamber, sort of like a fat glass pack muffler with the fibres blown out. The whole thing was about 60 cm long and made of thin commercial cardboard mailing tubes. The tubes stuck into the larger chamber were held in place with two opposite facing, gapped, overlapped foam tubing rings that fit the gap between the different diameters and also sealed the pieces. It can be taken apart and put back together like giant Lego.

The temperature distribution was always pretty good with no meaningful difference detected at the outlet locations. Measuring velocity at the outlet before the muffler was added was a nuisance due to complex velocity distribution. The plan was to permanently install a vane meter but that turned into a rabbit hole. Vane airflow meter manufacturers rarely discuss the Q of the meter, but it sure matters when one tries to stick it inline to a pipe… The short version is that around a pipe, vane anemometers can read almost anything you want it to, which for me is too arbitrary for a measurement.

Quote from Frogfall

Looking at the rest of the report,

We can find that the "engineers" claimed to be members of IEP are not members of IEP and all turns out to be a dilettante scam.

Hot wire anemometers also have a Q and because they are actively heated to maintain a temperature to do the measurement they are sensitive to air velocity and especially turbulence.

Quote from Wyttenbach

We can find that the "engineers" claimed to be members of IEP are not members of IEP and all turns out to be a dilettante scam.

Are you joking, or serious? If serious, hopefully you have something to back up your accusation.

Quote from Shane D.

Are you joking, or serious?

I sent Alan a reference of all certifying contractors for IEP. The last names fit the first names are different to avoid more legal problems...

So no joke. Sad reality. The "certification " paper is worse than any Rossi scam.

Quote from Wyttenbach

I sent Alan a reference of all certifying contractors for IEP. The last names fit the first names are different to avoid more legal problems...

So no joke. Sad reality. The "certification " paper is worse than any Rossi scam.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Quote from Kieran Cox

[CITATION NEEDED]

https://www.iep.pt/humanos/Certificados_SF6.pdf