Posts by Paradigmnoia

    Δ14.0 it seems for the letterbox. Not bad. Perhaps with some seam taping another 0.5 could be possible... This design might be leaky at higher input power, but it is cool to be able see in.

    It seemed quicker to match sudden inlet changes at the outlet, holding the delta, when at steady state compared to usual.

    I have the full size front panel already made, but need to close off most of the bottom inlet channel of the acrylic box so it can’t huff the insulation panel’s heated air gap air, unmeasured.

    With the closed front it should do a Δ15.3 which should be pretty close to maximum for 205 W.

    JedRothwell ,

    Test the parameters, man. My best real delta T with 200 W is 14.7 so far. Maybe 14.9 in the squiggles... but nothing ever over 15 C delta T unless I change some major like insulation.

    The same blower fan is set within 1/100 of a W of Mizuno, same acrylic box, same outlet hole...

    Anyways, you might like this next ephemeral iteration, which is like a 50’s television set...

    1 inch R6 polyisocyanate board with aluminum facing all around but bare acrylic for the front using the usual acrylic box as the inside. It should perform similarly to the full bubble wrap coverage, but you can see inside all the time through the front. I have it set up like a letterbox with the top half of the front face also covered. There is an air gap of about 1 cm all around the acrylic box and the cover polyiso board. So the sides of the window part and around the air inlet are pain in the

    Yes, obviously. That is the whole point of accounting for them. To make the total equal 100%. Those are losses. If all losses are accounted for, that's 100%, by definition. Capisce? What else would it be? If the output exceeds total input including losses by a wide margin, there must be excess heat. The losses are linear and predictable, as shown in the graphs. They have been measured by other methods, such as with an IR camera. So there is no doubt the losses are accounted for correctly. (Or, if there is any doubt, neither you nor anyone else has told us what it might be.)

    For that matter, output sometimes exceeds input even if you ignore losses. As I am sure you know from the report.

    So there is an calibration adjustment added to the calculated input energy total in the 2017-2018 data spreadsheet? (And yet the total input is not adjusted to 100 %)

    Or the calibration heat recovery has significantly dropped in the past year compared to the 2017-2018 experiments? (Even though it seems that no insulation was used on the calorimeter for early tests)

    The calibration output/input ratio used to be nearly 100 % (up to 400 W input), now it is only about 69 % (Hokkaido).

    Don't play games. Don't be silly. There is no such thing as a calorimeter with no losses. You know damn well how the calorimeter works. Losses are measured and then accounted for. They are linear and predictable. The same losses occur at the same power level every time.

    I refer mainly to pages 4 and 5 of the poster (38 and 39 of the report) for ICCF 21.

    The worst recovery (out/in ratio) was 89.4%, for 500 W.

    If the losses were accounted for, then the calibrations would read 100 %, no?

    Or is that relative to the aggregate of calibrations at a given input power/energy?

    The old SGS equipment certification often touted by Rossi was issued to EON, and was never valid for Leonardo.

    It was invalid the moment anything was changed on the Plant post inspection, and became invalid even if it moved to a new building, like from Bologna to Ferrara, or Ferrara to North Carolina for example, even if EON did still own it.

    It would have to be certified for insurance reasons, but I doubt it would be a typical full certification, like one obtained at the manufacturer level. Rather the Ecat SK would probably have a one time field certification in the factory, done on the spot. Along the lines of this:

    ULC designed the Field Certification program as a certification option for a wide range of products that are one of a kind or are produced in limited quantities. While Field Certification is not meant to replace full certification, it provides a one-time certification. This program provides you the convenience of having your products certified at the location of your choice by a ULC technical expert. The product is tested to the applicable standard and once the product meets the requirements of the applicable standard, the ULC technical expert applies a serialized numbered “Field Certified” label to each unit. And you will receive the final report to satisfy the local authorities across Canada.

    When to Consider Field Certification for your New Equipment
    • You are producing or have limited quantities or batches of product.
    • Your equipment is one of a kind or custom engineered.
    • Your equipment was UL listed but was modified.
    • Your equipment was inadvertently shipped without the UL certification mark.
    • Your equipment was installed without the UL certification mark.
    • You have shipped, or installed the equipment at the final destination.
    • You are developing a new design and want to assess if your product meets the applicable safety requirements.
    • You may need full certification for a new product you are designing, but you first want to test market the product.
    • You ultimately want full certification, but would first like to ensure that your prototypes and test samples comply with the essential requirements before submitting for full certification.

    Sounds about right. So certified not likely to cut, maim or kill someone, at the Customer location, but not for Industrial Use.

    Let's say a potential customer sees the advertisement and emails Leonardo Corp. Then what?

    1) Rossi emails them back saying, "Just Kidding!" No exchange of money. This is not capitalism at all, just a prank.

    2) Rossi contacts the potential client and assures them they pay no money for eCat installation, etc. Only for the power used. The potential customer then signs on or does not. Nothing wrong with that.

    Care to tell us how and for what Industrial use the ecat is certified for?

    You can complain to whatever authority you please about the Leonardo advert, but if any action at all is inspired, they investigators just get the “I am just a confused old man who doesn’t know any better” ploy from Rossi and get nowhere with him.

    Then why did representatives of IH try to bribe Dr. Levi to withdraw his support of the Lugano Report ?

    See : PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONDUCTCase 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 167 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2017

    That is what was claimed, but the proof failed to pass muster.

    That is why the judge allowed the documents and then threw out that claim.

    I suggest to read all of those Zali documents again.

    Day 27 is red because it is a Sunday, and is on the first column, as in the English calendar.

    The revealing red date is 11, a Friday. You have two national day in the 11th days of a month: February 11 (National Foundation Day) and August 11 (Mountain Day), a recent holiday established since 2014. But Mizuno's shirt suggests iy was summer, and the last Febray 11 which was a Friday happened in 2011.

    Sounds reasonable.