Posts by Paradigmnoia

    Personally, I find that the FUEL sample tested by Pettersson (who also did the Lugano analyses), received from Rossi on May 11, 2016, that contained 78.5% Ni62 and 86.5% Li6 far more interesting.

    He concludes: "Note that these numbers are preliminary, but the final numbers can only deviate by a few percent.

    The isotope composition of the Rossi sample is qualitatively the same as the ash from the Lugano experiment."

    Substantially the same, considering the lesser accuracy and use of surface methods.

    Or... 6 grains selected at random from 1000's were substantially Ni62 while the rest were not....

    But making any statements about untested particles is a waste of everyone's time. They could have been the same, or dustpan scrapings, or exfoliated skin particles from someone's pillow case for all we know.

    However, if the particles were selected at random, the odds of all of them having about the same Ni62 content, outside and in, while much of the rest did not, are low.

    Unless some sort of chicanery was involved.

    OMG, wytt.

    Total digestion analysis (dissolved in nitric acid) showed 99.3% Ni62. (Lugano report page 53).

    To summarize, the particles tested contained almost 100% Ni62, outside, in the center, and in between.

    The other nickel isotopes were nearly entirely absent. (0.3% Ni58, 0.3% Ni60).

    Back in "civilized" areas for a day... Good tidings all!

    Once upon a time we could work out results by mathematical precision. Indifferent to the machinations of the human mind. "Tricks" were exposed, Newtons Laws still held sway....

    Now it is "Did they have the money available?", "Were the Protocols deficient?", When did truly independent Experts arrive on the scene?", "Were they Really Independent?",

    "Who is flummoxing who?", etc.

    Math..., all-encompassing, extraordinarily efficient, almost unnaturally effective, fails us now.

    Opinion, the most useless of all human endeavors, now leads the charge.

    How ineffectual.

    How.... well just plain How?

    WTF can fill the void?

    Can the Mob make a useful decision?

    Can reason fight the darkness?

    Can opinion Rule on Fact in a useful way?

    Can science shed light on the shadowy darkness?

    Is it all a bunch of shit? From all directions? Misdirected misdirection?

    I have no answer.

    Cheers and good night.


    Wow. Two weeks without internet, and it is like time stood still here as far as I can tell.

    Oh, well, another week, at least, without internet on my annual Boreal tour still to come... maybe two more weeks as I chase spring upwards in elevation.

    Hopefully something will be resolved by then.

    Not quite midnight sun here past midnight, but still blue skies...

    Solstice is coming!

    Wyttenbach ,

    I was able to predict the Optris-reported temperature changes caused by emissivity adjustments. And then after downloading the Optris software a while back, able to confirm my predictions (made a year earlier) by examining emissivity changes to a real, hot object with an independently known temperature using the Optris software.

    So bully to the n=x for various bandwidths image from Optris.

    It is as accurate as the generic advertised calorie count reported for a McDonalds chicken burger, compared to actually measuring the calories in a randomly selected McDonalds chicken burger.

    (Click on the IR image to see the actual Optris calculation.)

    Rossi keeps his 11.5M (or whatever, 1M plant + Acceptance test) -- doesn't get his 83M GPT

    I..H.. gets nothing ... but keeps whatever ill-defined rights to worthless Rossi IP (QuarkX is another court battle)

    Except IH paid for the Plant in full ($1.5 million), and they paid a lot to refurbish it. So I would imagine that the Plant remains IH's.

    Perhaps they will allow Rossi to purchase it back for cost of the Plant plus refurbishment costs.

    I am sure that the Judge has seen more "aggressive stance"s, posturing, and appeals to the public opinion as reflected through Documents and Motions, than anyone would care to.

    "S**t or get off the throne", my spouse would say". or "Bulls**t is great for the garden, but leaves a bad taste in your mouth, so I'm not kissing that!".

    There are more radioactive elements in the Earth than most presume. I have seen a LOT, all over the globe. There are enormous plutons that should never be built on. Lots of them. Hot, hot, hot. How else do you think I got my super powers? (results not guaranteed, some people will have side effects including cancer, low/erratic sperm count and egg damage, negative genetic effects, abnormal growths, ability to see through objects, cognition errors, super brains, blog addiction, OCD, ADD, megalomania, restless work ethic, no ethics....)

    FWIW, I would consider Health, Regulatory, etc. permission/licensing/compliance -related delays to be legitimate Force Majeure conditions, since all parties would require the same approvals (etc.) and resultant delays in getting the said approvals, if they were to start a test independently of any contractual condition.

    OK, lets try this out:

    At the same "input" current, same heater wire resistance, a delta makes 1/3 the power of a wye, and the voltage will be higher across any two "input" leads in the wye than a delta using the same amount of current. This is because a delta winding has lower current in the resistance portion of the circuit than a wye with the same resistance in all three phases. And Joule heat is proportional to current.

    So going from a delta to a wye (not the other way around) might be a better way to get an apparent 3X heat gain using a simple current-only comparison trick... (The PCE will not be fooled by this.)

    I consider and treat two important parts of the Lugano Report quite differently: a) Measured Values and b) Calculated Values. Measured values I take at face value, otherwise one might as well forget trying to deal with any analyses at all regarding what is written in the report. Measured values could have minor (IE: transcription) mistakes, but I assume that these are really what was seen and/or recorded on measurement equipment for the most part. Calculated values can have all sorts of errors, like use of wrong formulas, etc., but can be reversed, when the calculations are made explicit, to derive the original Measured Values if enough other complimentary Measured Values are in agreement.

    I hypothesize that the Lugano device was set up as a wye for the dummy, and a delta for the Active Run(s), and this is consistent with the current and power reported in the report. This does not explain "excess heat" (fake or real), but explains the otherwise ~1/3 apparent resistance drop in the Active Run when assuming a delta configuration for both Dummy and Active Runs for the power levels reported. (The delta circuit is effectively a series connection for purposes of calculating the internal delta resistances).

    In addition to the apparent 1/3 resistance drop of a delta compared to wye at a common current, the C2 cables (in the Lugano arrangement) dissipate 2/3 of the power in a delta compared to a wye version, resulting in a 1/3.3 difference when the Active Run is compared to the Dummy run, using the Wye to Delta hypothesis. This differentiates this hypothesis from a reversed clamp hypothesis, as well as dove-tailing perfectly with the IR camera emissivity problem.

    (Some alternate hypotheses explain the excess heat by holding the effective heater resistance in the Active Runs equal to the Dummy version calculated value, a delta configuration for both Dummy and Active Runs, and therefore 3X more power generated than reported, but this conflicts with the emissivity error in that then 1/3 of the IR-calculated heat power is developed compared to electrical power consumed, after the IR-emissivity power corrections are made, as well as reported power consumption values (Measured Values) which are not arbitrary, but nearly exactly accounted for [quasi-confirmed] using alternate methods.)

    Hi P,

    I don't think this is true, because the I and V measurements on the three phases will measure power transferred correctly irrespective of Wye or Delta. You do get a difference if you just use V and I measurements without phase, or if you calculate power from just I, but the PCE-830 will use all info correctly.

    Maybe for some tests Rossi was using V & I measurements on 3 phase without a PCE-830. That would be another error mode I'd not considered...

    I stated that poorly and wrongly in my haste to get out the door. That comment of mine was not well thought out. It has been a while since I thought about the electrical characteristics of the Lugano demonstration.

    I mixed up the 1/3.3 resistance thingy with the power measurements, so you are correct. The PCE should measure the power correctly in both delta and wye as long as clamps facing the correct way.

    I will have go dig around in my old files to find the delta wye comparisons to make a more accurate statement regarding constant resistance and switching from wye to delta at either constant current or voltage. The handy web calculator with a nice diagram that I liked to use for helping to explain this (and was easy to change values around in) is longer available.

    Guess or provable fact?

    Pretty hard to pour toxic powder into a 4 mm hole with bundled, cemented together ceramic rods and 3x ~6ga cables attached to each end of the reactor, wouldn't you say?

    On an open metal rack, not even a table, even more so.

    For Lugano, starting the device in a wye configuration, then wiring the active run in a delta configuration gives a mathematically consistent (with current and power data supplied in the report) ~3.3 x apparent power difference. This would require no inverted clamp, (which might give an apparent ~9X input if combined with an unnoticed wye-delta switch). All that is needed for the wye-delta switch is for no one to notice it, and to make sure the observers think it was in delta configuration all along.

    The wires would have to be removed from the device in order to fuel it, so swapping from wye to delta is feasible when re-installing the device onto the test rack.

    Anyways, a 2.13 mg sample of ash, 3 particles selected at random, comprising between 95.6 to 95.9 % of the mass of the sample, totally digested in nitric acid, returned a result of 99.3% Ni62. So that is not a surface effect.

    Here is one of the most expert persons regarding alumina infrared characteristics. I suggest reading several of his relevant papers on the subject.

    I suggest:



    Development and characterization of low emitting ceramics

    (Papers by Rozenbaum et al are also excellent.)

    Just to add to Zeus46's comment, one can download the Optris software from a link on the MFMP website, and then search for the Padua Reheat page on the MFMP website, and download Optris video files done with an identically spec'd Optris camera to the Lugano one, and change the emissivities to one hearts content to see what happens.

    Things learned from that can be combined with an online radiance-convection calculator for power calculations, and also compared with the USGS-NASA radiance calculator (where one can match equivalent power-temperature-emissivity curves [make them cross just in the short wavelength side of the middle of the curves to get close], power per wavelength increment is done for you and can be downloaded in a spreadsheet) and so these can be used to back check the online radiance-convection calculator results.

    Anyways, fiddling with the Optris software and real IR video files of a known object is much more intuitive than fiddling with a bunch of numbers and finicky math.

    A couple of months ago I even posted a zip file of the Lugano device layout for the Optris software (the temperature measurement boxes in the shape of the Lugano dogbone, labelled the same as Lugano). Looks like below, Customize the measurement boxes any way you want...

    USGS-NASA radiance calculator here :…rmal-radiance-calculator/

    Calculator for horizontal cylinder here:…linder/horiz-cylinder.htm

    we_cat_global ,

    Ni62 is worth what it costs today to replace it. Insurance value, if you like. A Corn Flake shaped like a bust of Lincoln is worth more than an amorphous Corn Flake, if the market says so.

    If the reaction worked for a year, the final product should show it.

    Crack open those 64 reactors and let's see what's in there.

    I based my value on only 0.9 grams per reactor. Really, for a year, there should be more than that.

    If Rossi took it, (re-charging), then he owes IH the value of the ash.

    It's not Rossi's ash to take.

    The thousand bucks of nickel powder Rossi needed to balance JMP accounts isn't equivalent to the Doral ash. Not even close.

    If the Doral Plant worked, there should have been over $800000 worth of Ni62 in those reactors.

    If Rossi substituted IH's fuel, he had better be able to account for their Ni62.

    That's right, IH's ashes and IH's fuel in the other "domestic heater" reactors also.

    IH paid for the Plant 100%. Paid in full. They own all of it, reactors, fuel, ash, and even the rusty water stains and magic over-pumping metering pumps.

    Back here again with Lugano?

    Build one, don't fuel it, and do everything else the same (IR camera settings etc.).

    Voila! The same COP as Lugano will be result. (But it won't be a real excess heat).


    For that matter, just build a simple smooth alumina cylinder with no fuel with a much simpler heater set-up (single phase, maybe even DC, for example)

    And do the rest same as Lugano with the IR camera.

    The darn thing will still make a (not real) COP similar to Lugano!


    The upcoming MFMP Lugano Thermal Validation Repeat (Or whatever it is called) can't come soon enough as far as I am concerned.