Posts by Paradigmnoia

    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:

    DETERMINING THE TRANSMITTANCE AND EMITTANCE OF TRANSPARENT AND SEMITRANSPARENT MATERIALS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES

    and

    Development and characterization of low emitting ceramics


    (Papers by Rozenbaum et al are also excellent.)



    https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=axiRa44AAAAJ&hl=de

    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 : https://astrogeology.usgs.gov/…rmal-radiance-calculator/

    Calculator for horizontal cylinder here: http://www.thermal-wizard.com/…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).

    WITH NO FUEL IN IT!!!


    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!

    WITH NO FUEL IN IT!!!


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


    The strange thing is, with Ni62 being byproduct and possibly fuel enricher, the scarcity and price of Ni62 since Lugano haven't changed in a significant way.

    No secret labs buying up all the supply, no dumping of excess recovered from reactors... No speculators shorting or hedging...

    Even though the reactors in Doral might have doubled the world supply.

    I have two quotes, and agreed not to disclose the actual price. Since the quotes were written up by the mg, scaling to kg is incorrect anyways. I have a valid quote for 20 g and 1 gram, and several emails going back and forth walking me down from the original 25 kg enquiry, suggesting that my order was in the millions of dollars and asking did I make a mistake or can I substitute.

    I suppose there could be a premium for locking up the supply chain for several months and/or scrounging up every mg of Ni62 on Earth to get 100 g ready.

    A day after the Lugano report came out, I made a tentative order for a 25 kg pail of Ni62.

    The supplier (generically) reported quantities available to that size.

    Of course, this was much more expensive than Pt sponge, and was not available even in 100 g packages (but 100 g could be made for me in several weeks or so, after a rather shockingly huge down payment was sent).

    But those negotiations did not mean that I was working with the supplier.

    I still have the quotes on my laptop. They were confidential, due to the large volume I requested. (Maybe one day I will post a redacted version.)

    Ahhh...

    The infamous backwards feet image.

    How simpler things seemed back when those Plant images were new....*sigh*...


    (Supposedly that series of photos were taken in Raliegh NC, Rossisaid, but they are actually from Doral).

    @IH Fanboy ,

    Fabiani's numbers mostly match, but the date is often offset, both from Rossi and the ERV report. In many places the numbers do not match, by a lot.


    Rossi scribbled down 103.3 or thereabouts hundreds of times, the ups and downs of which seem to have almost no relationship to the steam T provided by the ERV report, and snippets of Fabiani data, or breakdowns for that matter.


    Fabiani disagrees with the water flowed per day in the ERV report many times. He calculated COP twice daily, even.


    Fabiani agrees with the ERV, mostly, that the Plant used more electricity than was supplied by FPL for two weeks, straight. If those meters were that wrong for that long even infrequently, FPL would never have installed them. They are in the business of measuring power delivered.


    JMP (as a separate entity) does not agree with Rossi on how much energy JMP recieved vs sent from the Leonardo side of the selective membrane wall.


    JMP (that side of the wall) was totally incapable of measuring energy recieved from the Leonardo side, independently. Therefore Rossi disagrees with himself regarding the Plant output.

    Fabiani's data doesn't match the ERV data (huge discrepancies), Rossi's data doesn't match the ERV data (huge discrepancies), the ERV input data doesn't match the FPL data (huge discrepancies), the Plant worked for hours and hours after it was shut off and partially disassembled (several times), etc....


    Guaranteed Performance, my ass.