So you read this:
FOIA requests, I talked to the person handling this round today, and he is working on it,
But, in your head, that became this:
CERL refuses to answer even FOIA requests about that issue.
You really wonder why I don't waste my time addressing your fantasies?
Why not spend some time reading 'part 3' of your bible?
Let's do some homework before spouting off, Colwyn.
And if you want to appear in the slightest credible, please try responding to the actual issues with facts, links and references along with believable arguments and reasoning. I do. Can't you?
Anyone who has read the previous two pages should recognize the irony of these two statements.
Where, exactly is this wonder. I seem to have missed it. Quote and link please. (thanks)
It's there, I promise you. I don't want to wade through the poorly written prose of Mr Wright, however after your recent debacle with the supposedly "missing" CERL report, maybe some practice with a search engine would be of benefit.
(Try looking for the long reference number that describes the New Hampshire? university "boiler experiment" mentioned in the references of the CERL report. It's looks something like TR-00-76-GH-00 or similar). When you find a link to The Wright Stuff you can then use the "Ctrl+F" function to search the lengthy pages of half-truths for the same string.
When you find it, why not ask him for a copy, so we can all see it? No doubt you two have something of an affinity, he won't suspect you to be fact checking him, I'm sure...
Colwyn
I am positively fascinated. Tell me where to find these theories. And I hope they don't come from word salad diarrhea specialists like Axil and the rest of the weird people on Vortex, or Lomax!
Maybe LENR/CANR, or perhaps the CNMS online journal. The proceedings of ICCF's, or maybe Hagelsteins MIT cold fusion 101 videos. The academic interviews section of coldfusionnow?
Have you ever worked in a lab, nuclear project...
I can tell you I've done quite a bit of precision calorimetry and heat flux measurement but what difference does it make? I am not and don't claim to be a specialist in either heat transfer, fluid flow or nuclear physics. I'm just a person who can sniff out fraud, illogical actions and claims, lies, and general foolery.
I'm not sure you are qualified to judge whether Axil is writing word salads or not. The fact you call them "word salads" likely hides your inability to discuss, correct or improve his ideas.
Also, CERL refuses to answer even FOIA requests about that issue. Doubt it? Call them! Wright tried the FOIA -- not quite sure if they even bothered to reply.
No, you are spreading more lies. He says on his website that they answered a FOIA, and sent him supporting documents mentioned in the bibliography of the CERL report - including details of the university trials.
Wright references this, did not publish them, no doubt as they would undermine his chosen narrative.
I do know that getting nothing but a single extremely rare isotope out of the reaction and all without radioactivity, is ridiculous and absurd, even if Rossi's other claims are true. If you don't realize this, you are incredibly unschooled in science in general and physics in particular.
More Horganism. (Or possibly a Hodygasm?) Maybe you should devote some time to try to understand the theories that could explain this, if you are so interested in the topic.
Now please explain to me why this highly efficient and powerful, simple, easy and cheap to repeat test was not repeated and instead, attention was focused exclusively on a much less powerful and efficient device (factor of 10 less at least) requiring a vastly more uncertain and complicated method of testing.
It would seem they slowed the reaction down to increase the duration of the test. A reasonable aim, seeing as nobody wants to be refuelling the thing every 18 days. "COP" (it's not a resonant system) potentially differs as I suggest above.
Are they skilled sleight of hand stage magic experts?
Is Rossi a skilled sleight of hand stage magic expert? Could Rossi have practiced his angles without knowing where the professors would be stood?
and I have also held consultant and administrative positions with the government, academia and industry.
Then why demean yourself with "arguments" such as Levi "looks a bit strange"?
Colwyn
why are you here in this forum?
Trolls gonna troll.
Mary Yugo finds people who are interested in Rossi's saga, and tries to push them into defending Rossi, in which case they are labelled a gullible "True Believer", or "a dummie", and demeaned and ridiculed on other internet forums.
I think he is bored in retirement.
He believes he is the spiritual successor to James Randi, when in reality, the only thing they share is that they are both obsessed with a (different) foreign man.
Are these claims in your first paragraph more truths you read on Gary Wrights site? I don't have time to fact check them to understand whether they even need explaining. If the first e-cat was better insulated, the external temp would have been lower, and the COP higher. Maybe the water flow cooled it down more efficiently than radiation alone? Airbus say that running their reactor hot prevents radioactive emissions.
As for the ash, how do you know all the Ni was converted? Maybe it was just the surface of the particles. Maybe the particles as analysed were not representative of the sample.
The professors you so charmingly belittle as the 'three blind mice' (You are a calorimeter salesman??) have ruled out the possibility of a switch.
QuoteSimple physics tells us, that lenr is simply bullshit.
...An almost perfect example of Horganism
Thomas, my ultimate point to do with all of this, is that someone should get an Optris P-whatever, heat up some Alumina, and point the damn thing at it.
Now I say that, I recall GSVIT did that, although it wasn't the same model of camera. And, I think MFMP tried to do the same, but blew their Optris up somehow.
@colwyn[/url] - I don't know but perhaps you are misinformed here because on ECW my paper, and any discussion by me of it, are banned. So perhaps you are not fully informed? Forgive me if I'm doing you an injustice: I don't go to ECW since I find it irritating to go to a site and read things I'd wish to contribute to but not be able to.
I read your paper here, I'm not sure why you think having your paper published on e-catworld would be some sort of achievement, it's a just a rumour mill. (I don't read the comment there for the same reason as you). Rothwell's LENR/CANR site is a much better home.
And, I agree with the main points of your paper, it's a good work. I just think your error bars are potentially even larger. The camera software is an unknown, and might even already contain similar routines to yours, maybe.
Thomas, I'm sorry if I have missed an earlier reply of yours that covers this, but I was respectfully referring to this:
Quote from AlainCoDisplay Moreok, transparency won't change the result.note that if ridge increase emissivity of the IR measured by the cam, it also increase the emissivity used to compute the output...in my rough computations, I join your result on temperature (I'm even more pessimistic with a peak at 750C) , but it also have impact on the 450W baseline, and on the output sensitivityif you integrate emissivity error on both side of the balance, something real remain, which may explain the transmutations.It appear if you simply compare the input power change with temperature change...only excuse to reach COP=1 is to have a lower emissivity than assumed already, which is not coherent with the initial hypothesis and corrections.
quickly computin
with 1450C estimated, if emissivity in the 7.5-13µm is not 0.4 but 0.9 (x2.25 more) then temp is 744C 1017K. e~0.53. T^4 ~ 1.07e12 -> p~.57
with 1250C estimated, if emissivity in the 7.5-13µm is not 0.4 but 0.9 then temp is 675C 948K.e~0.57. T^4 0.81e12 -> p~0.46
the ratio of power is 1.23, while for electricity it is +12% from 800 to 900W
during the calibration at 450W if emissivity was 0.9 instead of 0.7 , temperature would be 400C 673K. e~0.75. T^4 ~ 0.205e12 -> p~.15
compared to 900W the change in eT^4 power is x3.7, while power in x2
compared to 800W the change in eT^4 power is x3.06 while power is x1.72
there is many things to account :
- first change the calibration temperature with the same algorithm. here this decrease calibration temp by 50C
- estimate change in power between the various stable states and compare with electric power.
- intégrate convection (I did not do that her...)
- integrate temperature difference on the body (I did not do)
with that simplified computation there are incoherence that appear :
- the change from 450W to 900W seems to cause x3.7 instead of x2 power increase, from 400 to 745C, implying a COP of 1.85
- the change from 450W to 800W seems to cause x3.06 instead of x1.72 power increase, from 400 to 675C, implying a COP of 1.71
- the change from 800 to 900W seems to cause 23% increase instead of 13% with a 70C change in temperature from 675 to 745C
another source of question is that calibration looked correct at low temperature, which seems incoherent with initial hypothesis (why emissivity would increase with temperature from 400 to 800C).
Quote from 'Thomas ClarkeAlainCo wrote:
another source of question is that calibration looked correct at low temperature, which seems incoherent with initial hypothesis (why emissivity would increase with temperature from 400 to 800C).
This was a relatively small error (approx 17.5C), and could maybe be accounted for by the thermal gradient clearly visible in the photo, or a mistake in the quoted emissivity (I have no data on this), or an error in convection (which I cannot easily check, but which is not very significant in the high temperature tests). In any case inconsistent results are not a reason to expect extraordinary evidence of LENR - rather they are a case to suspect that the testers have not got a solidly worked out testing regime.I suppose if you a priori believe that Rossi has working devices, arguing now that the Lugano tests are essentially null because they are badly conducted is your best bet to maintain your initial assumption. Given these were undoubtedly the best and most independent of Rossi's tests it is not a good bet.
Quote from Thomas ClarkeDisplay MoreAlainCo wrote:
note that if ridge increase emissivity of the IR measured by the cam, it also increase the emissivity used to compute the output...
in my rough computations, I join your result on temperature (I'm even more pessimistic with a peak at 750C) , but it also have impact on the 450W baseline, and on the output sensitivity
if you integrate emissivity error on both side of the balance, something real remain, which may explain the transmutations.
It appear if you simply compare the input power change with temperature change...
only excuse to reach COP=1 is to have a lower emissivity than assumed already, which is not coherent with the initial hypothesis and corrections.
If you claim the transmutation is partial (say 0.1% of total) then there is no heat excess to speak of. If you claim the transmutation what it appears - total - you need a power out 10X what a 50% error here could give. Obviously too large. So either way COP 1.5 or COP 1 makes no difference explaining the transmutation.My code used the ridge correction on all the emissivities. In any case the known errors here are quite large, so I don't understand this comment.
Colwyn
Two of AlainCo's other posts have been the most nuanced and insightful comments I have ever read on the topic of Rossi and LENR. I suggest we carry on notre [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon] en Francais, and see how far we get.
Thomas, you should re-read the calculations he posted twice on this thread a few pages back, hard to follow for some, maybe, but you chose to follow the red herring of transmutations, rather than get into the thrust of his quantitative argument.
Colwyn
I simply cite facts
No Mary, you repeat Gary Wright's lies.
...that the descriptive paper which documents the fraud was removed from the agency (DOD/CERL) web site!
Quote from Mary YugoInstead, DOD tried to erase the whole event from the internet.
Quote from Gary Wright
The document Thermo(2004).pdf was available for many years from –dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdfThis link is now dead, we presume, as a result of our investigations.
If you had bothered to check out what he says (generally a good idea when you read a paid-for attack site) you would realize that the entire domain closed down in 2012, and that the paper cited was available until it's demise:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil
After it was closed, the DOD just moved the archive to the EDRC website:
It would have taken you seconds to find this, had you chosen to look for it. Instead, you chose to blindly believe a clearly dubious source. Hardly the work of a real skeptic, by definition, which makes it hard to take you seriously.
You should measure the heat flux emanating from your mouth! The results my be positive or negative, but certainly revealing.
Colwyn
